Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unvaoidable absence through illness of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's Sitting:—

Whereupon Dr. HORACE KING, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SELECTION

Committee of Selection nominated.—Mr. Brian Batsford, Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, Mr. Harold Gurden, Mr. Clifford Kenyon, Mr. Kenneth Lewis, Mr. Malcolm MacPherson, Mr. Thomas Steele, Mr. John M. Temple, Sir Richard Thompson, Mr. Wilkins, and Mr. Woodburn.—[Mr. George Rogers.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Redditch

Mr. Dance: asked the Postmaster-General if he will give an assurance that telephone cables and exchange equipment will be available to keep pace with the expansion of Redditch as a new town.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): Yes; Post Office officials maintain close liaison with the Redditch Development Corporation and our plans cater for the expected growth of the telephone system there to keep pace with the expansion of the new town.

Elmbridge Exchange

Mr. Fisher: asked the Postmaster-General when the Elmbridge telephone exchange will become automatic.

Mr. Joseph Slater: We plan to open the new Elmbridge automatic exchange, with S.T.D. in mid-1966.

Mr. Fisher: That is a little better than I expected, but may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that it is a very bad service at present? I have taken deputations to see his predecessor, and have had endless correspondence over the years. Can the hon. Gentlemen expedite it further? What is delaying the installation of an automatic system?

Mr. Slater: Perhaps the answer which I can now give the hon. Gentleman in reply to his supplementary question will assist him much more. We are starting to install the equipment this month. It will take about 18 months to do this work.

Charges (Old-Age Pensioners)

Mr. Costain: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the social value of telephones for elderly and infirm persons; and what proposals he has for the provision of reduced rental charges for telephones to help old-age pensioners.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): As I told the hon. Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) on 10th November, I am considering whether the Post Office could help in cases of this kind.

Mr. Costain: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that his predecessor was investigating the possibility of putting in alarm bells to bring help to old-age pensioners when they were ill or needed special services?

Mr. Benn: There are a number of specific ideas which I am having considered very actively, and as soon as I am able to report on them I shall do so.

Maidstone

Mr. John Wells: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to improve the telephone service in the Maidstone area.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I am sorry that the service has been unsatisfactory because of the heavy load on the exchange. It is being extended and the new equipment, which will give S.T.D. facilities, should be in service by the middle of next year.

Mr. Wells: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that assurance, but most of my constituents would rather have a plain


telephone quickly than hang about waiting for an S.T.D. one in the future. May we have an assurance that more lines will be available in the near future?

Mr. Slater: We are doing all we can to improve the service on behalf of the hon. Member's constituents. As I have mentioned, the new subscriber trunk dialling equipment which we are installing should give a greatly improved service.

Victoria Exchange

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Postmaster-General, whether he will give special attention to the overhaul and maintenance of the equipment at the Victoria telephone exchange, in view of the number of misroutings and no pick-up calls in recent weeks.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Yes, Sir. The equipment is being overhauled and the service should improve.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Perhaps it is in order for me to put a supplementary question. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that on one morning this week I got three misroutings and three no-tone calls in a quarter of an hour? Is he aware that the Victoria Exchange has been going rapidly downhill ever since the Labour Government came to power, and what is he going to do about it?

Mr. Slater: May I say to the hon. Gentleman that the weather has not been very good either? The automatic service given by the Victoria Exchange has been unsatisfactory in recent months, so that we may go beyond the period since the Labour Government came into power. About 5 per cent. of dialled calls have been failing, largely as a result of a no-tone or number unobtainable condition. A special investigation into the exchange equipment commenced in August and is still proceeding. Certain parts of the equipment are being reviewed and an improvement in the service is expected in the very near future.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Redditch

Mr. Dance: asked the Postmaster-General if he will give an asurance that an adequate number of post offices, sub-post offices and post boxes will be provided to keep pace with the expansion of Redditch as a new town.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Yes, Sir. We have been in touch with the Development Corporation; and we shall continue to keep in touch with it so that the planning of postal facilities can keep pace with the plans for the expansion of Redditch.

Mr. Dance: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply which I think will give comfort to my constituents. At the same time, can he give me a positive assurance that all the equipment and installations will be completed well in advance of the actual completion of the buildings concerned so that there will be no delay in the services which will be so very much required by my constituents?

Mr. Slater: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we cannot, of course, decide where or how many post offices and posting boxes will be required until we have some idea of how the town is to be developed, and the Director of the Midland Region and the local head postmaster will continue to keep in touch with the Development Corporation.

Attacks on Employees (Protection)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Postmaster-General how many attacks have been made on Post Office workers during the past 12 months; if he is satisfied they get all the protection they need; what new steps he is proposing to take; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Benn: During the 12 months ended 30th September, 1964 there were 92 thefts or attempted thefts from Post Office staff in which some degree of violence was either used or threatened. While the present crime rate continues no one could be entirely satisfied with the amount of protection that can be given to staff; but we are constantly reviewing our protective measures to see whether they can be improved and this will continue.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the bravery so often shown by Post Office staff on these occasions.

Sir C. Osborne: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if the staff have made any representations to the Minister for greater protection, since some of these attacks in rural areas have been of a very brutal character, and do these workers feel that severer punishment would give them greater protection?

Mr. Benn: There have been discussions with the staff on this matter, and, obviously, they are concerned because of the risks which they run. I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for his continuing interest in this matter.

Post Office Savings Bank

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Postmaster-General if a suitable site has been obtained for the head office of the Post Office Savings Bank in Glasgow; and when he expects the building to be completed.

Sir M. Galpern: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will give an assurance that it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the Post Office Savings Bank should be moved to Glasgow; and what steps have been taken to implement the decision of the previous administration.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the progress being made in transferring the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow.

Mr. Benn: I told the House on 10th November that the decision to move the Savings Bank to Glasgow still stands. For a move of this magnitude staff co-operation is indispensable. The first task, which I am tackling personally, is therefore to win the good will of the staff and avert compulsion. I hope that before long it will be possible to make plans for the operation, including choice of an office site, in consultation with them and the City of Glasgow. We are keen to make progress.

Mr. Taylor: While thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask him whether he will not agree that while we accept that the detailed administration for the transfer, particularly of staff, will take a considerable time, it is difficult to see why a decision on the site for the office in Glasgow cannot be arrived at, particularly when the corporation promised to make a list of sites available? Further, will the Minister not agree that the people of Glasgow are rather concerned that if a decision is not arrived at this year it is somewhat unlikely that the 6, 000 jobs envisaged will be available before 1970?

Mr. Benn: I appreciate the point which the hon. Gentleman is making and I understand the desire of the people of Glasgow to get this move through as quickly as possible. On the other hand, the Post Office has a very proud record of dispersal with the co-operation of the staff. I think that the hon. Gentleman is as well aware as I am of the difficulties which have arisen in this case. I am very keen to work with and through the staff about the choosing of the site, which is a matter of concern to them, and I am grateful to Glasgow for having made the offer of the many sites. We shall make progress as soon as possible.

Sir M. Galpern: Will the Minister consider convening an early conference of representatives of Glasgow Corporation and neighbouring local authorities interested in this project for the purpose of considering practical measures to facilitate the smooth and acceptable transfer of the civil servants from London?

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. The first job is for me to meet the staff, and the wives of the staff involved, personally. I have made an offer to meet them in the first instance.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will have the full support of Glasgow in seeking to secure the maximum of good will in this transfer? Does he recollect that last week he said that now a good deal of computerisation—I think that that was the word he used—was involved in the transfer? Would he just make it perfectly clear in what way computerisation should delay the transfer?

Mr. Benn: In respect of my hon. Friend's first question, I am very grateful for his assurance that the people of Glasgow will make it easy, because it is very important to have good will on both sides. As for the effect of computerisation, the position really is this, that there are 44 million accounts in the Post Office Savings Bank and these are being transferred to computer operation, and to transfer a base, and to alter the basis on which the accounts are kept up to date at the same time, is, to say the least, a difficult operation. That was the only reason I mentioned it.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Nevertheless, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that


the vast majority of the Post Office Savings Bank workers very much resent being asked to move out of London as well as out of England, and will he give an assurance that where these people are to suffer a very great upheaval, and offer good and adequate reasons for their staving, they should be given every consideration and offered comparable employment?

Mr. Benn: It is exactly for that reason that I have offered to meet the staff, and the wives and families if necessary, in order to ease the difficulty. If I may say so, that supplementary question was singularly unhelpful.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Special Stamps

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General if he proposes to continue the policy of the previous Government with regard to the issue of a Burns stamp.

Sir H. Kerr: asked the Postmaster-General whether, to mark the 700th anniversary of Parliament in 1965, he will issue stamps to commemorate the event, bearing if possible a picture of Simon de Montfort.

Mr. Benn: As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) on 10th November, I am currently reviewing Post Office policy with regard to the issue of postage stamps, and will make a statement later.
In this review, I shall consider the claims for a Burns stamp and a stamp to mark the 700th anniversary of Parliament.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that his statement will arouse considerable interest in Scotland? Is he aware of the possibilities of a considerable amount of money coming from the Scots through this stamp? Does he realise that many hundreds of thousands of Scots overseas, who were driven there during the years of the Labour Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—during the thirteen years of Tory Government—will be very glad to get a stamp to show that there has been a change in this country?

Sir H. Kerr: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the centenary of

the sitting of the first Parliament in 1265 in Westminster Hall requires special notice not only in this country but in the whole Commonwealth?

Mr. Benn: That is one of the points I am considering, but I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that it is now too late to issue a stamp of this kind in January, and such a stamp, if it were agreed that one should be issued as part of the review of stamp policy, would not be able to come out till later in the year.

Mr. George Jeger: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind, when considering the design for a Burns stamp, that Burns was a very enthusiastic volunteer in the Forces, and that if a stamp carries the design of Burns in military uniform it will not only please my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) but stimulate recruiting?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. W. Hamilton.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I have called Mr. Hamilton for the next Question.

Harpenden Post Office (Staff)

Mr. Allason: asked the Postmaster-General what proposals he has to improve the staffing position at the Harpenden Post Office.

Mr. Joseph Slater: We shall continue with intensive advertising and also with our efforts to recruit staff for Harpenden from other places. Meanwhile, we are trying to arrange some loans from elsewhere in the area where, however, staffing difficulties are fairly general.

Mr. Allason: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the service in Harpenden is appalling? They are down to only one delivery a day. In some cases that delivery is at 11.30 a.m., and firms are asked to collect their own mail from the Post Office. Is it enough just to get a few extra postmen from other towns? Cannot the hon. Gentleman do something more definite in view of the scandalous position which exists in Harpenden at the moment?

Mr. Slater: We are looking closely at all aspects of recruitment to ensure that this service is as efficient as possible, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree


that we must be careful to recruit reliable people as postmen.

London Postal Districts.

Mr. Atkins: asked the Postmaster-General what changes he proposes to make to the present system of London postal districts following the creation of the new London boroughs; and when these changes will come into effect.

Mr. Joseph Slater: None, Sir: postal and local government boundaries do not necessarily coincide, and we have no plans for altering the London postal districts when the new London boroughs are set up.

Mr. Atkins: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously intend to continue addressing half my constituency as "Morden, Surrey", which is not in Surrey? Does he intend to perpetuate the existence of Middlesex which is being done away with?

Mr. Slater: The existing postal boundaries are designed to give good postal services at reasonable cost. To do what the hon. Gentleman has in mind would mean additional expense for the Post Office and a change of address for many people without compensating advantages in their postal services.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will the hon. Gentleman note that the residents of Twickenham are content to go on being addressed as "Twickenham, Middlesex"?

Sub-Post Office, Banbury Market Place

Mr. Marten: asked the Postmaster-General if he will now re-establish the sub-post office in Banbury's market place.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I have carefully considered this matter but I am sorry that we should not be justified in reestablishing the sub-post office. But, when the proposals for the redevelopment of the central area of Banbury mature, we shall, of course, review the need for post offices in the area generally.

Mr. Marten: Nevertheless, as this redevelopment plan will inevitably come, will the hon. Gentleman in the mean-

time realise that Banbury is very much an expanding town, and that it causes great inconvenience to my constituents to have to walk a long way up town to the only post office? Will he give an assurance that he will personally look at this question again?

Mr. Slater: I understand the hon. Gentleman being concerned about this, but the sub-post office has been closed for three and a half years and the evidence that we have had does not suggest that our customers have been seriously inconvenienced.

Mr. Marten: I realise that, and for three and a half years I have been pressing to get this sub-post office opened. Nevertheless, will the hon. Gentleman answer my question and give an assurance that he personally will look at this question again?

Mr. Slater: I have no objection to having a look at this again, but we do not normally provide a post office in an urban area within a mile of an existing office.

Parcel Services, West Midlands

Mr. Peter Walker: asked the Postmaster General what action he is taking to improve the parcel services in the West Midlands.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I am sorry that some parcels to and from the West Midlands are being delayed. These delays are due in the main to shortages of postal staff at Birmingham and some other large offices. We are doing our best to recruit staff but there is intense competition for labour in the areas concerned.

Mr. Walker: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a large concentration of mail order houses and similar organisations in the West Midlands, and that many of these firms are contemplating going over to their own C licence vehicles rather than use Post Office services? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that one of the excuses offered by the Post Office has been the reconstruction of New Street Station? Will he look into alternative ways of coping with the problem which might ease the immediate difficulties?

Mr. Slater: We are always seeking to look at alternative ways for the distribution of our postal services, in addition


to our efforts to recruit more staff and thus reduce the delays which occur at certain offices. British Railways, who handle the parcel mails at stations, are actively engaged in tightening up and improving their arrangements to give parcel mail a speedier transit. I am aware that efficient postal services are vital to the well-being of industry and of the community at large.

Telegraph Poles

Mr. Brewis: asked the Postmaster-General, what proportion of telegraph poles is of home-grown timber; and whether he will revise the specification to enable a larger proportion of homegrown poles to qualify.

Mr. Joseph Slater: About one-eighth of the poles purchased in the last five years were of home-grown timber. We gladly take all the home-grown poles we can get, and our standards for them are already much less exacting than those for imported poles. I am advised that to lower the standards further would involve undue risks of danger to staff and public and shortening of the physical life of the poles.

Mr. Brewis: I thank the hon. Member for that reply, but is not there scope here both for saving imports and encouraging our own forestry industry? Will he look at the specification in force in other European countries? My impression is that it is a great deal lower than in this country.

Mr. Slater: We seek competitive tenders for all our poles, and if the prices quoted for imported poles are lower than those for home-grown poles we normally offer the home growers contracts for the maximum number they can supply at prices equivalent to those quoted for imported poles. In practice, the prices that we pay for home-grown and imported poles are substantially the same.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will the Minister try to take other steps to improve this proportion, particularly in view of the fact that the amount of maturing home-grown timber is increasing, especially from the woodlands of the Forestry Commission itself?

Mr. Slater: It might be for the benefit of the House and for hon. Members who are interested in this question if I circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures concerning the number of imported poles and United Kingdom poles. This might give some of the information that the hon. Member requires.

Deliveries (Fareham-London)

Dr. Bennett: asked the Postmaster-General why a letter postmarked Fare-ham 8.15 p.m., 5th November, 1964, whose cover has been sent to him, was not delivered on the next day to the addressees in Piccadilly; and at what time before 9 a.m. on Monday, 9th November, when it was received by those addressees, it was in fact delivered.

Mr. Joseph Slater: This letter should have been delivered on Friday, the day after posting, and I am sorry that because of shortage of staff in London it was not. I understand that the premises to which it was addressed are normally unoccupied on Saturday, and, as there is no letter box, it seems likely that the letter was delivered around 8.30 a.m. on Monday, 9th November.

Dr. Bennett: I am glad to accept the hon. Gentleman's apology for this lapse on the part of his Department, but does he realise that a failure such as this at the beginning of the weekend means that a letter of some urgency takes 84 hours to travel 76 miles, which is not a very clever ratio for a 1964 economy?

Mr. Slater: It is only fair to point out that of the millions of letters which are posted each day the vast majority are delivered first thing next morning.

Dr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that letters from my part of Hampshire are the subject of complaints by a number of my constituents, which I am passing to him at present? Will he look into the apparent dissociation between Hampshire and London in the matter of postal services?

Mr. Slater: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me have particulars about that, apart from the case he has mentioned. I can then look into it.

Finance

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Postmaster-General what was the profit


from telecommunications for the year ended March, 1964, and what profit is forecast for the following year; what was the loss on the postal services for the year ended March, 1964, and what result is forecast for the following year; what increase in wages and salaries will occur during the year; and what the recent wages award to postmen will cost in a full year.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Postmaster-General how much of the projected loss in the postal services is due to the increased wages award for Post Office workers announced by the last Government.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Postmaster-General what was the profit of the Post Office for last year; what is his estimate of outturn for this year; how much of this profit was made on telecommunications services; and what contribution is being made to the Exchequer.

Mr. Benn: In the financial year ending March, 1964, the profit from telecommunications was £39 million; the loss on postal services was £8 million. Estimates for the current year show a profit on telecommunications of £34 million; a loss on postal services of £16 million. The recent wages award to postmen will cost £6·7 million in a full year. I cannot yet say what, if any, other increases will be agreed in the current year. The payments to the Exchequer under Section 2 of the 1961 Post Office Act in lieu of taxation amounted to £·.7 million in 1963–64.

Mr. Cooke: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree, however, that the loss on the postal services in the year 1963–64 was less than in 1962–63 and that the difficulties in which he now finds himself are largely, if not entirely, due to the substantial wage award made to postmen? Would he bear that in mind?

Mr. Benn: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has got this wrong. The postal services have accumulated a growing deficit. The estimates for this deficit show a likelihood of it growing still further without regard to this particular increase, and that is the problem which confronts the House and the Government.

Mr. Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman now admit that the other day when he announced in the House the losses on the postal services he was really being too clever by about 6 per cent., because he must have known, and must make clear, that although we accept that wage increases come, the public has to be made to understand that when wage increases are made they have to be paid for?

Mr. Benn: The estimates about the future profitability and financial return of postal services to meet the target of 8 per cent. laid down by the previous Government revealed a shortfall of exactly the kind that I described, of the exact size that I described, last week. Any further questions about what happened last summer should be addressed elsewhere—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the 3d. post is running at a profit or a loss?

Mr. Benn: That is the subject of another Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Local Broadcasting Stations

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Postmaster-General if he will now allow the British Broadcasting Corporation to establish a series of local broadcasting stations.

Mr. Benn: I am looking into this whole question and will make a statement later.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has had discussions with the B.B.C. and other people concerned with this matter since he took office? Can he give us some idea of the time-scale he has in mind? Does he realise the high degree of urgency in this highly imaginative programme which the B.B.C. has in mind?

Mr. Benn: I have had an opportunity of a first informal talk with the Chairman and Director-General of the B.B.C. and a number of subjects were discussed, including this one, but I am afraid I am not in a position to make a statement, though I appreciate the need for urgency in this matter.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are a lot of people who would not wish to see the B.B.C. licence fee increased as a result of activity in this field? Perhaps he would consider, in all fairness, whether some of these stations might not be supplied by local authorities, by universities, or by commercial interests—[Horn. MEMBERS: "No"]—in view of the costs, so that there should be no additional cost to licence holders?

Mr. Benn: That really raises quite a separate question. The Question was whether the B.B.C. should be allowed to establish a series of local broadcasting stations. If the hon. Member would like to put down another Question on this I would do my best to answer it.

Programmes (Content)

Mr.Dempsey: asked the Postmaster-General if he will establish a viewers' council to advise on the suitability of television programmes; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Benn: No, Sir. Programme content is the responsibility of the Board of Governors of the B.B.C. and members of the I.T.A. The establishment by me of a viewer's council would tend to diminish the authority of the two broadcasting authorities and, in consequence, their capacity to discharge their responsibility. Also, it would raise doubt as to where responsibility lay: with the broadcasting authorities, or with the council. Each anthority has already its own General Advisory Council, and other advisory committees, through which it can sound opinion on its services.

Mr. Dempsey: Yes, but is the Minister aware that these so-called advisory councils have in no way halted the growth of suggestive entertainment and of the glorification of thuggery in television, or the unsuitability of programmes at school holiday times? Would he not agree that it would be far more effective if we established a council from a very good cross-section of the British community to advise these organisations and my right hon. Friend's good self on television presentations?

Mr. Benn: No, Sir. The fact that an advisory council does not give advice of the kind the hon. Gentleman would like

it to give is not a prima facie case for setting up another advisory committee.

Mr. Jennings: Would it not be advisable if the right hon. Gentleman were to look a little closer at some of the programmes which are broadcast on television? Has he, for instance, seen the reputed successor to TW3? Does he realise that some of that programme is in extremely bad taste and in some cases is almost blasphemous, and that in an incident last week—

Hon. Members: Speech.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. This supplementary question is getting a little long.

Mr. Rankin: Too long.

Mr. Benn: I think that the hon. Gentleman had better think this through to its logical conclusion. There are reserve powers invested in the Postmaster-General. If they are to be exercised by the Postmaster-General that means that whoever occupies my office would have the power, on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, to censor individual progratmmes if he thought, in his judgment, for it could not be anyone else's judgment, that they were offensive to taste, or biased politically. If I were to exercise my judgment in censoring a programme which I thought politically biased or offensive, one of the first people, I think, who would object would be the hon. Gentleman himself, for our views would not coincide.

Mr. Victor Yates: Would not my right hon. Friend agree to discuss with the broadcasting authorities whether or not a more scientific method could be arranged to decide what the public really think ought to be improved, in view of the large amount of violence which appears on television and the increasing rate of violent crime? I do think that a more scientific method ought to be devised, rather than one which depends on hundreds of viewers having to telephone the B.B.C. to object.

Mr. Benn: I very well appreciate my hon. Friend's point. Of course, each of us, as individuals, has views—I have—but it is open to all of us now to make any representation direct to the B.B.C., and this is a perfectly proper thing to be done, and is done by hon. Members, and is part of the general accountability of the B.B.C. to the public which it serves.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that part of this difficulty arises from the fact that the Scottish programmes have got to take some of the London service, and that standards do differ in some respects, and that, therefore, there should be control in London of programmes which are sent to Scotland, and which are unacceptable to the Scottish way of life?

Mr. Benn: I recognise that there are difficulties of this kind, but the more difficulties the hon. Lady raises the more impossible does it become for the Postmaster-General to agree to intervene, in view of the regional difficulties which she mentions.

Colour Television

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Postmaster-General what steps he proposes to take to achieve the early establishment of a colour television service in this country.

Mr. Benn: This is one of a number of questions which the Government have to study in reviewing broadcasting policy generally, and on which its conclusions will be announced as soon as they are reached.

Mr. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the hints which appeared in the Press this morning that the Government intend to hold up the introduction of colour television are true, and whether he had a hand in inspiring these rumours? Is the Postmaster-General aware that we had undertaken, if we had won the General Election, to introduce colour television at least by 1967? In those circumstances, will he look at the matter again, because if there is ally holdup it will be a severe blow to the electronics industry?

Mr. Benn: I have had some opportunity of assessing the value of hon. Gentlemen's election pledges in my own Department. In view of the rising deficit that would confront the B.B.C., I very strongly doubt whether it would have been possible to have done that. The answer that I have given is the correct one. We are reviewing this. The standards are being studied in April, and we hope that a decision will be reached in April. After that it is a question of what degree of priority we give to this as against other possible demands on our resources in broadcasting.

Television Reception, Ferrybridge

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the unsatisfactory television reception in Ferrybridge and district; and whether he will take the necessary action to improve the situation.

Mr. Joseph Slater: Reception of both the B.B.C.'s and the I.T.A.'s television services should normally be good in Ferrybridge and district if suitable receiving aerials are used; but if my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind and will write to us about it, we will gladly have it investigated.

Mr. Jeger: But I understand that a number of my constituents have sent a petition to the hon. Gentleman's Department, and the purpose of my Question was to stimulate a reply to that petition. Is it impossible to get a local booster station which would help the reception of television in this area?

Mr. Slater: I am not aware of any petition that has been sent to my Department in regard to the matter mentioned in the Question, but both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. say that Ferrybridge and district receive a satisfactory signal from their stations at Holme Moss and Emley Moor. The Post Office North-East Region confirms this and says that it has had no recent complaints.

Low-Power Station, West Dunbartonshire

Mr. Steele: asked the Postmaster-General if he will now make a statement on the provision of a low-power television station to serve West Dunbartonshire.

Mr. Joseph Slater: No, Sir. I would ask my hon. Friend to await the announcement, which my right hon. Friend expects to make shortly, about the B.B.C.'s plans for improving television reception and coverage.

Mr. Steele: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is the same disappointing and unsatisfactory reply that I have been receiving over the years, and that I had hoped for a little more encouragement? Is he aware that many of my constituents will take a very dim view of further extensions to existing channels


while they are still unable to receive programmes from one channel?

Mr. Slater: I am very sorry that I have to give such a disappointing reply to my hon. Friend, but I think that it would be generally agreed that the right course is to present the plan as a whole. My hon. Friend will realise that there are some places which have no service at all, which have first to be considered.

Armistice Sunday (Programmes)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Postmaster-General if he will use his powers under Section 14(4) of the Licence and Agreement to direct the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain in future from sending the Royal Command Variety Performance on the evening of Armistice Sunday.

Mr. Prior: asked the Postmaster-General if he will use his powers under Section 14(4) of the Licence and Agreement to prevent the broadcasting of programmes similar to the British Broad-casting Corporation's television farming programme of 8th November, 1964.

Mr. Benn: No, Sir.

Mr. Dempsey: Is not the Minister aware that through the excellent efforts of the British Legion in many towns and cities on Armistice evening these festivals are held in order to commemorate the names of those who died that we might live? Is it not a cynical disregard of the feelings of relatives that such a star attraction should be presented on Armistice evening, especially when it could be presented on one of the other 364 evenings of the year, reserving Armistice evening for more appropriate material? Will he consider this question and realise the feelings of those left behind?

Mr. Benn: No, Sir, I will not, for the reason that I gave earlier, namely, that if I were to accept responsibility for this it would become my duty—for which I would become increasingly responsible to the House—to observe every single piece of programme planning on all three television and all three sound programmes in order to satisfy myself that it did not clash with any other attraction of the kind that my hon.

Friend has mentioned. Such a task would be totally impossible and totally unacceptable to Ministers of either party. I hope that hon. Members will not continue to table Questions of this kind—[Interruption.]—to which there can be only one answer.

Mr. Jennings: Is the right hon. Gentleman completely disclaiming any responsibility at all for the good or bad taste of broadcast programmes?

Mr. Benn: The hon. Member must understand that the principles embodied in the Answers that I have given have been accepted by the whole House and all Governments since broadcasting began, namely, that whereas reserve powers are vested in the Postmaster-General, for reasons which the House laid down in Act of Parliament, he does not exercise them for the purposes for which these Questions have been tabled. It is in order for any hon. Member to put down a Question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but the Answer which I will give, and which has been given by successive Postmasters-General, quite rightly in my submission, will follow the pattern that I have given in reply to the hon. Member and my hon. Friend.

Mr. Bellenger: Although we understand perfectly well that the Postmaster-General is not expected to take up censorship powers, nevertheless, when he is convinced that there is a very strong body of opinion, especially in this House, with definite views on a subject, cannot he himself make representations?

Mr. Benn: No, Sir. I will not make representations on behalf of hon. Members, since Members of this House can make representations as individuals, or pass a Resolution which can be drawn to the attention of the B.B.C.

Mr. Hogg: If the right hon. Gentleman is not going to censor broadcast programmes, will he also undertake not to try to censor Questions by hon. Members?

Mr. Benn: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well, I make no attempt to censor Questions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] What I said was that Questions which were put down asking me to use my powers to censor


B.B.C. and I.T.A. programmes would meet with the same response, and I asked hon. Members not to put down Questions in the hope that I would vary that decision. This principle has been accepted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's colleagues, as well as by my colleagues, for a long period, and it is one from which he himself would not for a moment dissent.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask my right hon. Friend to understand that we thoroughly understood what he meant? May I further ask him not to pay the slightest attention to "bonkers" from the other side?

Services

Mr. Noble: asked the Postmaster-General what degree of priority he is giving to providing wireless and television services to those areas of the country not yet adequately covered.

Mr. Benn: It is, of course, for the broadcasting authorities in the first place to consider what measures to take in order to improve the reception and extend the coverage of their services. As I said earlier, I am at present considering proposals the B.B.C. has put to me; and I hope to make an announcement soon.

Mr. Noble: Does the Minister realise that, though the percentage of people who do not get any service or do not get an adequate service may be small, the frustration increases as the number declines and that these are all areas in which we are having difficulty in persuading people to stay in the rural districts? Is the Minister also aware that in many parts of my constituency people can listen only to Radio Caroline and that I hope he will see that the B.B.C. keeps up with private enterprise?

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman has taken a continuing interest in this subject in the past and the view he expresses is very much shared by the B.B.C. and by the Department for which I am responsible.

TRADE UNIONISTS (COURT DECISION)

Ql. Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the damage which the recent court decision in the cases of Rookes v. Barnard and Stratford v. Lindley has caused to the interests of workers who are trade unionists; and if he will state his plans to minimise or rectify that damage.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): We have undertaken to introduce during this Session a Bill to give workers and their representatives the protection necessary for freedom of industrial negotiation.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Prime Minister realise that the problems presented by these decisions are of the utmost importance to trade unionists and will he see that solutions are expedited?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. We have made clear that a Bill will be introduced in the House and will be debated.

Mr. Ridley: Before the Prime Minister redeems his pledge, will he consider whether he is quite certain that it is right to give trade union leaders the right to force people out of employment under the protection of the law?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will study what I said in a speech to the T.U.C. on this question. I said that we were concerned with putting right that aspect of the law which was never thought to have been in doubt 60 years ago. I said that we did not intend to raise any fundamental question of human rights in dealing with it.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS AND NATIONAL SERVICE

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Prime Minister why he has not appointed the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to the Cabinet.

The Prime Minister: As I said in my speech in the House on 3rd November, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is of course


a member of the Cabinet, will among other duties assigned to him have the task of co-ordinating the work of the social services. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance will, of course, attend meetings of the Cabinet whenever the affairs of her Department are under consideration, in accordance with the usual practice.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the direct consequences of some of his financial policies have led to a steep rise in the cost of living? Is he aware that pensioners, whose No. 1 economic priority is stability in prices, would believe that the Prime Minister had that much more in his heart if he appointed the Minister of Pensions to the Cabinet?

The Prime Minister: I am aware that we have taken early action regarding legislation to deal with the problem of old-age pensioners. Secondly, I am aware that in the whole period of the Conservative Government the only Minister of Pensions and National Insurance who was in the Cabinet was Mr. Osbert Peake, now, I believe, Lord Ingleby, who was a member of the Cabinet for only a few months.

PRIME MINISTER OF RHODESIA (INVITATION TO LONDON)

Mr. Wall: asked the Prime Minister what reply he has had from the Prime Minister of Rhodesia to his invitation to visit London for talks.

The Prime Minister: Mr. Smith said on 24th October that he would be pleased to visit London for discussions after the referendum which took place on 5th November. Since then he has made no further mention of such a visit, but on 6th November in a message he made public, he invited my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary to visit Salisbury. Nevertheless the invitation to Mr. Smith to come to London remains open, as I again made clear in my published message to him of 7th November.

Mr. Wall: Now that Mr. Nkomo is no longer in prison, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider sending the Secretary

of State to Rhodesia? Would not he agree that a meeting of Prime Ministers might be dangerous until such time as the Rhodesian electorate is convinced that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is not to impose an African majority in the next two or three years?

The Prime Minister: It is partly a question of what is meant by "Rhodesian electorate". Apart from that, I think it would be extremely valuable if there could be discussions with Mr. Smith, because the right hon. Gentleman my predecessor had very frank discussions with him and I had a brief meeting with him in September. I think it would be helpful if Mr. Smith could come over on the basis I indicated in my speech of 3rd November, when the whole thing could be discussed very frankly between us.

Mr. Turton: In order to remove ambiguity both here and in Central Africa, could the right hon. Gentleman state quite clearly the terms and conditions under which Her Majesty's Government would grant independence to Rhodesia?

The Prime Minister: I thought that that was very clearly stated without ambiguity in the communiqué of the Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. As I said on 3rd November, that statement in the communiqué was the basis of our approach to this problem.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is it not most undesirable that communiqués between two Government should constantly be in public? Should we not get back to confidential negotiations and communications?

The Prime Minister: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. I am glad to say that in the latest messages which we have had both ways, Mr. Smith has said that they should be treated confidentially, and we are both doing that. But I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it was important that full publicity should have been given to the statement, which was put out and which was not meant as a confidential communication between Governments, warning everyone concerned of the consequences of a unilateral declaration of independence.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: When my right hon. Friend speaks of the invitation to Mr.


Smith remaining open, is it the position that the Prime Minister has intimated to Mr. Smith that he desires him to come to this country for conversations, or has that been left as a matter of inference and implication from Questions and Answers in the House?

The Prime Minister: This is not a question of inference. It has been stated quite categorically and communicated to Mr. Smith.

No. 10, DOWNING STREET (CHIEF PRESS OFFICER)

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Prime Minister how the recent vacancy for Chief Press Officer at No. 10, Downing Street arose; and whether the vacancy was made known to other suitable candidates.

The Prime Minister: I appointed the man whom I thought could give me the best service in this post, which had been vacant, though covered by temporary arrangements, since February.

Sir Richard Glyn: Can the Prime Minister say what post is now being filled by the former Chief Press Officer? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the normal procedures were followed at every stage of this change-over of Chief Press Officer?

The Prime Minister: To answer the second point first, the normal procedures were followed. I think that it has been long understood that the position of what used to be called Public Relations Adviser to the Prime Minister has been filled on a direct basis by the Prime Minister in terms of who he thought would do the job best. The new Chief Press Officer's predecessor, who held the position temporarily, has now gone to the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made it quite clear when the previous appointment was made that it was temporary and would have to be considered again after the election.

TECHNOLOGY

Mr. Maxwell: asked the Prime Minister what functions the Department of Technology has taken over from the Ministry of Education and Science, the

Lord President of the Council, the Board of Trade, the Treasury and the Ministry of Aviation, respectively; and whether he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I cannot as yet go beyond the information already given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science on 5th November. I hope that a further statement will be made shortly.

Mr. Maxwell: Does the Prime Minister realise that this is causing a great deal of uncertainty and dissatisfaction to research workers in universities, industry and Government Departments and that I hope that a speedy statement will be made?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I am not so aware, but a lot of work is going on on this question which, it will be realised, has been the subject of considerable thought and argument and disagreement over the past two or three years. But only three weeks ago we were being told that some of the workers in these industries thought that decisions were being taken too quickly. We are trying to establish a happy medium between moving too quickly and moving too slowly.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Sir Knox Cunningham—

Mr. Hogg: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we shall see—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. It would assist the Chair in carrying out a difficult job if Front Benchers, like back benchers, did not speak until they were called. Sir Knox Cunningham.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Can the Prime Minister say whether the new Minister of Technology will deal with the new process of automation in shaving?

The Prime Minister: I should be glad to answer the question, but I did not hear the last two words of what the hon. Gentleman said.

Sir Knox Cunningham: I asked the right hon. Gentleman if he could say whether the new Minister of Technology would deal with the new process of automation in shaving?

Mr. Hogg: Can the Prime Minister tell us when the Minister of Technology will be with us in the House?

The Prime Minister: I should think that the period of delay will be rather comparable to that which we all suffered so greatly a year ago when we were waiting for the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall the somewhat offensive observations then made from the Opposition benches about the arrangements, and will he accept my assurance that they will not be repeated on this occasion?

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Prime Minister what steps he has taken to ensure that the persons who have been engaged in an advisory capacity to assist him or other Ministers or Departments have been informed that they are subject to the Official Secrets Act and to all the instructions as to official behaviour which apply to established civil servants.

The Prime Minister: It is the duty of Departments to bring the provisions of the Official Secrets Acts to the notice of their staffs, both established and temporary, and new entrants are required to sign, on entry, a declaration acknowledging that this has been done. Departments are also responsible for informing their staff of the instructions governing the conduct of civil servants. This action has been taken in the case of the persons referred to in the hon. Member's Question.

Sir Richard Glyn: Can the Prime Minister say what steps he personally has taken to satisfy himself on the security aspects of these appointments, bearing in mind the great interest which he has always taken in security matters and also the unfortunate experience of the last Socialist Government with a foreign-born atomic scientist?

The Prime Minister: The last Government of this country, which was not a Socialist one, also had a number of very distinguished foreign-born advisers and no problem arose. I am quite sure that hon. Members opposite had the fullest confidence in those persons, one of whom has now been reallocated in an advisory capacity in the Cabinet Office. But I very much deprecate some of the statements made, whether in the form of Question

at Question Time or in speeches, reflecting on the loyalty of some advisers in respect of whom the security proceedings could not have been more thorough and who have been British nationals for a very long time and have given very good service to this country.

TEMPORARY CIVIL SERVANTS (NATIONALITY RULE)

Dame Irene Ward: asked the Prime Minister whether the general regulations of the Civil Service Commissioners on nationality requirements were satisfied in the case of the appointments of Mr. T. Balogh, Professor P. Blacken, Mr. H. F. R. Catherwood, Dr. N. Kaldor and Mr. R. Neild; or whether their appointments as temporary civil servants have been made at the discretion of the Departments to which they are attached.

The Prime Minister: Although these are temporary appointments, the requirements of the nationality rule are met.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of the fact that there is a new regulation, within these regulations covering entrants to the Foreign Office, coming into operation on 1st January, 1965, which was circulated with an Answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can now give me an assurance that if any new regulations are brought into operation the House will be informed? I had no assurance in answer to the speech which I made in the House last week.

The Prime Minister: I made it clear that the existing regulations are being most stringently followed in every case and the most thorough inquiries are made. As and when new regulations are introduced, they will be followed in all cases.

Dame Irene Ward: In view of the new regulation, which was not reported to the House until I put down a Parliamentary Question, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will kindly give me an assurance about any new regulations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I am not making any allegation[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—I am merely asking about the procedure. Will the Prime Minister give me an assurance that when


new regulations, such as the one circulated in HANSARD, are brought into operation, the House of Commons will be informed without a private backbencher having to ask a Question?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Whenever it is appropriate, this will be done, but I think that the hon. Lady will realise that the security services have to operate a very large number of regulations and practices which have never been announced to the House by any previous Government.

Mr. Will Griffiths: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that during the period of office of successive Tory Governments which we had before he formed his Administration, security procedure has been applied by right hon. and hon. Members opposite in such a way that very small and insignificant people have been ruined and dismissed from the public service and not a word in their defence was said by hon. Members opposite? Yet would not my right hon. Friend agree that at the same time there were most serious breaches of security at a very high level?

The Prime Minister: These are very difficult subjects, as the whole House recognises, and in the last Parliament we probably spent more time debating security than any of us wanted to. But I think that it is fair to say that there were one or two cases under the recent Government—one a fairly recent one—where there appeared to be a very strict application of a rule in respect of a young woman employee which, when brought to the attention of the Minister concerned, was dealt with in a humane way by the exercise of that Minister's discretion. That is what we have to do in respect of all these appointments.

SOUTH AFRICA (ARMS EMBARGO)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
The Government have decided to impose an embargo on the export of arms to South Africa.
Since the Government took office no licences for the export of arms to South

Africa have been issued. It has now been decided that all outstanding licences should be revoked except where these are known to relate to current contracts with the South African Government. The contract to supply 16 Buccaneer aircraft is still under review.
Outstanding commitments by the Ministry of Defence will be fulfilled, but, as from today, no new contracts will be accepted for the supply of military equipment. The Ministry of Defence will proceed with manufacturing agreements that have already been concluded, but not yet executed.
Licences for the export of sporting weapons and ammunition will be revoked and shipment will be stopped forthwith. In other cases, when licences are revoked, fresh licences will be issued to the extent necessary to permit the execution of current contracts.
These decisions bring the Government's policy into line with United Nations resolutions on this question, the latest of which was the Security Council resolution of 18th June.

Sir A. Douglas-Home: The Prime Minister has made a statement which could have far-reaching implications, and I wish to ask him several questions, since it is important to elicit exactly what it means.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there would be no further export of arms to South Africa. Is this, in effect, a unilateral denunciation of the Simonstown Agreement, because, if it were so interpreted by either party, there would be an immediate need for a debate in this House, and we should request it.
To turn to the statement itself, what is the meaning of the sentence:
The contract to supply 16 Buccaneer aircraft is … under review"?
There is a contract for 16. There is the prospect of a good many more aircraft of the same kind being supplied for the South African Government. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether progress payments have been made in respect of some of these additional aircraft which were to be supplied? It is fairly common knowledge that the South African Government would, in the years to come, have ordered submarines and other naval aircraft from this country. Are these to be cancelled? Is the Prime


Minister saying the same in respect of South Africa as he said in respect of Spain, and denying the export markets for these?
There is then the question of the strategic implications if this is, in effect, the encl of the Simonstown Agreement. There are not only the communications centre, which is enormously valuable to the Royal Navy and to the allies, and the over-flying rights which the South Africans give us to be considered. If the Suez Canal were closed in any future war, which might relate to an attack by Indonesia upon Malaysia or an attack by China upon India, how could Her Majesty's Government fulfil the commitments which they have undertaken?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman said that this statement had far-reaching implications. Not to have made it would have had far-reaching implications—[HON. MEMBERS: "0h."]—for our relationships with and membership of the United Nations and for our relations with a large number of Commonwealth countries in Africa and elsewhere.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the statement I have made amounted to the unilateral denunciation of the Simonstown Agreement. No, of course it does not, because nothing I have said in any way involves a breach of the Agreement. Moreover, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, the Agreement is not capable of unilateral denunciation.
As regards the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the importance of the Simonstown base in the hypothetical circumstances of a future war—he mentioned Suez—I can tell the House that the Government have no intention whatever of embarking on a Suez adventure. I should have thought that that was clear.
With reference to the statement last Saturday by the South African Prime Minister, which was made after these decisions had been reached among us, though before the announcement, I am sure that the whole House will feel that it would be utterly wrong and a complete breach of our relations if there were to be a denunciation of an agreement which can be broken only by mutual agreement.
But I must add that, if the Leader of the Opposition thinks, or if Dr. Verwoerd thinks, that the Simonstown Agreement can be broken off by the South African Government in this way because they are annoyed about some action we have taken in conformity with our obligations to the United Nations, it will cast doubts in the minds of many hon. Members on what the value of this base would, after all, be in a war if South Africa disapproved of Britain's action in entering that war. It is important, therefore, that the whole House should be thinking about this question of the Simonstown Agreement.
As regards the Buccaneer aircraft, I said that this contract was under review. That is what I meant. No decision has been reached on it. It is true that certain progress payments have been made, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested.
I am sorry to take so long, but the right hon. Gentleman asked a lot of important questions.
As regards the general decision, we are doing exactly what the United States did in conformity with the United Nations Resolution. We are allowing most of the existing contracts to run out. The only exceptions are the one relating to sporting arms and ammunition, which can be used, and have been used, for internal purposes, and the other one on which no decision has been reached, that is, the Buccaneer aircraft contract.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to export markets. It is unusual, as he knows, for the actual figures of these shipments to be given in the House, but he will know, as I do, that, in terms of our total export trade, the arms shipments to South Africa are an extremely small proportion. If I were to feel, or if the whole House were to feel, that the future of our export trade depended on maintaining exports of this kind, then right hon. Gentleman opposite must have left us in an even worse mess than I thought.

Mr. Thorneyeroft: First, on the question of transit and communications facilities which might be put in jeopardy if the Simonstown Agreement or overflying rights failed, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this goes much deeper than Suez, that we have about one-third of our Forces at present east of


Suez, and that the ability rapidly to reinforce them at a moment's notice is something upon which the lives of British soldiers, sailors and airmen depend? Has the Prime Minister really entered into full consultation with the Ministry of Defence on a matter so deeply affecting the defence of this area of the world, our allies and the safety of our troops?
Secondly, as to the Buccaneer aircraft, the Prime Minister said that there would be a review. What does that mean? Does it mean that the right hon. Gentleman is contemplating the possibility of a contract honourably entered into being unilaterally broken? Is that a possibility which he has in mind?
Thirdly, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the contract for the Buccaneer aircraft has to be regarded as a whole. That is to say, it is not only a question of the production order of 16. There is also the option on the further 14 and the supply of spares. Would he make it clear beyond peradventure that if the contract is to be proceeded with it is to be honourably proceeded with, and all its implications are to be followed through?

The Prime Minister: First of all, with regard to the question of communications and the Simonstown Agreement, the right hon. Gentleman is making a very strong case with which I agree against the denunciation of the Agreement by either side. But I am bound to say that if he thinks that one consequence of the arms embargo that we have announced would be that the South Africans would or should denounce the Agreement, then I come back to what I said earlier, that it would mean that all the dependence that we have on this communications equipment would be highly vulnerable in conditions of war. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]Certainly it would, because it would mean that we could take only those actions in wartime which had the approval of the South African Government. We are certainly not prepared to feel that the security of this country should be so dependent on the attitude of a Government who do not see eye to eye with us on so many international questions.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Ministry of Defence had been fully consulted. Of course it was. There were very full discussions.

Without my revealing the nature of them, the right hon. Gentleman will know the kind of discussions that they were. Of course that was done.
I said that the question of the Buccaneers was under review. That is what I meant. It is under review, and we shall announce a decision to the House when the review is completed.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the statement which he has just made he has the unanimous support of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen behind him and the overwhelming support of the people of this country?
Is it not the case that under the Simonstown Agreement this country handed over the base to South Africa on certain terms, and that if the South African Government repudiate one of those terms, and thus repudiate the Agreement unilaterally, the base will revert to United Kingdom ownership?

The Prime Minister: All I am aware of is that, whatever opinions may be expressed about this, in this connection we are discharging our responsibilities to the United Nations, and hon. Gentlemen opposite are against our doing it.

Mr. Grimond: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, although Sir Patrick Dean referred in his speech in the debate in the United Nations which led to the resolution of 18th June to a previous speech in which he made some distinction between arms used for different purposes, he, as our representative, voted for the resolution and that he presumably did this on the instructions of the late Government? So it is not only a resolution by which we are bound, but a resolution for which we voted. We should be in most serious breach of our obligations to the United Nations and in breach of undertakings given by the late Government and not the present Government.
Secondly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman a detailed question about the Buccaneer? I understand that the review of the 16 Buccaneer aircraft is an exception to the general rule that contracts already concluded will be honoured. Is this because there is some doubt about the purposes for which the Buccaneers might be used, because there seems to


be some doubt whether they would be an effective weapon, for instance, in maintaining internal security? The House would be grateful for a little more information about why this contract is excepted from the general rule.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's account of the voting in the United Nations accords with my own recollection, though it is fair to say, as he did, that Sir Patrick Dean made this verbal reservation at the time, though as to how the Government voted I think there can be no doubt.
We went very carefully through every one of the existing contracts to see whether any one of them could be involved in breaking the spirit of the United Nations resolution if allowed to run on. There was a very minimal amount of spares for certain equipment sent there. This was perhaps arguable, but we decided that the contracts should he fulfilled.
So far as the Buccaneers are concerned, the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned one exception that is appropriate to review, but there are others into which it would not perhaps be helpful to go at this stage but they will be gone into when we make an announcement.

Sir G. Nicholson: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a very large volume of opinion among people who detest apartheid as much as he does to the effect that to force the South African Government into a position of increasing isolation is the very worst method of influencing their policy?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I do not doubt that there is a very great volume of sincere opposition to apartheid among those who take a different view from ourselves about the arms embargo, but we believe—it is our view, although we do not expect all hon. Gentlemen to share it—that if one holds that view one must back it with deeds.

Mr. Wall: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that other European countries are already negotiating to complete the contracts that we are giving up? Will he make clear whether the review of the Buccaneer refers to the initial order of 16 and the second order,

or only to the first order? This is a matter of great importance to my constituency. Can the right hon. Gentleman say how he will redeem the pledge he gave during the General Election to ensure that no unemployment results from the cancellation of these contracts?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the attitude of other European countries, we are proposing to fufil our obligations under the United Nations, and I trust that they will as well. The philosophy that if we do not do it someone else will has always been throughout the ages the traditional apologia for doing things which are known to be wrong. I say quite categorically that the basis of the lowest common denominator of international morality will not be the basis of this Government's actions.
The whole order for the Buccaneers is under review, and I will make a statement when I can, but we have very much in mind—I certainly have—what has been said before the General Election and at other times on the question of employment.

Sir A. Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman's replies to the questions that I asked earlier and the ones that he has subsequently given to my right hon. and hon. Friends raise in my mind the question whether he has thought out the strategic consequences of the matter. He gave a flippant and, I thought, rather cheap retort about the Suez operation. The fact is, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite must realise this, that it is quite likely that over-flying will be stopped and it is quite likely that the Suez Canal could be closed, and that we could not, therefore, reach and reinforce our Forces in the Far East if the Simonstown Agreement were lost to us.
I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will provide a very urgent debate on this in the Government's time. I must give him notice, because I fear the consequences of what he has said today, that if tomorrow or on subsequent days the South African Government strongly react to this I shall ask for a debate in the House immediately under Standing Order No.9.

The Prime Minister: We on this side of the House have never taken the question of Suez flippantly in any way. We


regard it as a very serious business, and it was important to repeat our attitude so far as that question is concerned.
Of course we have carefully considered all the stategic implications, just as fully as the right hon. Gentleman ever did. I am bound to say that when I hear the right hon. Gentleman making all sorts of suggestions about what might be the quite illegal consequences to this on the part of the South African Government, I wonder whom he thinks he is helping with that sort of question.
The question of over-flying rights is an important one. There are very many other questions of over-flying rights affecting other parts of Africa, as the right hon. Gentleman will be only too well aware. If he is saying or implying—I am sure that he did not intend to do this—that the South African Government would be within their rights in interfering with these over-flying rights or in denouncing the Simonstown Agreement because of their dislike of the United Nations resolution and our action under it—even if he is suggesting that by accident—then he is, by the same argument, implying that the Simonstown Agreement would be worthless in any war that the South Africans did not approve of.

Mr. Bellenger: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to give deferred notice that he will raise this matter under Standing Order No.9? Surely that Order, amongst other things, raises a matter of urgency?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): I do not think that what the Leader of the Opposition said was out of order. He indicated that his intention might be to call the attention of the House to a matter of urgent public importance under Standing Order No. 9. When it comes before the Chair, the Chair will take notice of it. This is

merely an indication of something that the right hon. Gentleman possibly had in his mind. Can we proceed now?

DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): I beg to move,
That, during the absence through illness of Mr. Speaker, Sir Harry Legge-Bourke shall be appointed an additional Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means and shall be entitled to exercise all the powers vested in the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means, including his powers as Deputy-Speaker.
I have it in command from Her Majesty to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the subject matter of this Motion empowering a member of the Chairmen's Panel to act as Speaker, gives Her consent thereto.
The need for this Motion, as the House will know, is that Mr. Speaker has undergone an operation which we are all glad to see from reports has been successful.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If the House will agree to this proposal that an additional Deputy-Chairman should be appointed until Mr. Speaker is able to resume his duties—and there is reason to hope that this will be for only a very short period—two desirable purposes will have been served.
First, the necessary relief would be provided for the Chairman of Ways and Means and his deputy, and secondly, we shall be avoiding the hazards which would be involved if there were to be, unfortunately, a further indisposition reducing the number of occupants of the upper Chair to one.
It is in these circumstances that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke)—and I mention this with gratitude to him—has very kindly agreed to act as an additional Deputy-Chairman. I commend the Motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

[11th November]

Resolutions reported,

For particulars of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1964; Vol. 701 c. 1046–1060.

First Resolution—Hydrocarbon Oils, Etc. (Customs and Excise)—read a Second time.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions).

The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 284.

Division No. 5.]
AYES
3.54 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dunnett, Jack (Nottingh'm, Central)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edelman, Maurice
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Alldritt, W. H.
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jackson, Colin


Armstrong, Ernest
English, Michael
Janner, Sir Barnett


Atkinson, Norman
Ennals, David
Jeger, George (Goole)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Ensor, David
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Barnett, Joel
Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Baxter, William
Fernyhough, E.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Beaney, Alan
Finch, Harold
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Fitch, Alan
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bence, Cyril
Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Jones, T. W. (Merloneth)


Binns, John
Floud, Bernard
Kelley, Richard


Bishop, E. S.
Foley, Maurice
Kenyon, Clifford


Blackburn, F.
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Boardman, H.
Ford, Ben
Lawson, George


Boston, T. G.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Leadbitter, Ted


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S.W.)
Garrett, W. E.
Ledger, Ron


Bowles, Frank
Garrow, A.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Boyden, James
George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Ginsburg, David
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Bradley, Tom
Gourlay, Harry
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gregory, Arnold
Lipton, Marcus


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Grey, Charles
Lomas, Kenneth


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Loughlin, Charles


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Griffiths, Will (Manchester Exchange)
McBride, Neil


Buchanan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
McCann, J.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hale, Leslie
MacColl, James


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
MacDermot, Niall


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McGuire, Michael


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
McInnes, James


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Coleman, Donald
Hannan, William
Mackienzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Conlan, Bernard
Harper, Joseph
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hattersley, Ray
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Cronin, John
Hayman, F. H.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Crosland, Anthony
Hazell, Bert
Mallalleu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Manuel, Archie


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Heffer, Eric S.
Marsh, Richard


Dalyell, Tam
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Mason, Roy


Darling, George
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Maxwell, Robert


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Mayhew, Christopher


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Holman, Percy
Mellish, Robert


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Horner, John
Mendelson, J. J.


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Mikardo, Ian


Delargy, Hugh
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Millan, Bruce


Dell, Edmund
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Dempsey, James
Howie, W.
Milne, Edward (Blythe)


Diamond, John
Hoy, James
Molloy, William


Doig, Peter
Hughes Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Monslow, Walter


Donnelly, Desmond
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Driberg, Tom
Hughes Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Hunter Adam (Dunfermline)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Dunn, James A. (L'pool, Kirkdale)
Hunter A. E. (Feltham)





Mulley,Rt.Hn.Frederick(SheffieldPk)
Richard, Ivor
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Murray, Albert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Neal, Harold
Roberto, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Newens, Stan
Robinson, Rt.Hn. K. (St.Pancras,N.)
Thornton, Ernest


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Tinn, James


Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Rose, Paul B.
Tomney, Frank


Norwood, Christopher
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Tuck, Raphael


Oakes, Gordon
Rowland, Christopher
Urwin, T. W.


Ogden, Eric
Sheldon, Robert
Varley, Eric G.


Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Orbach, Maurice
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Orme, Stanley
Short,Rt.Hn.E.(N'c'tle-on-Tyne,C.)
Wallace, George


Oswald, Thomas
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Warbey, William


Owen, Will
Silkin, John (Deptford)
Watkins, Tudor


Padley, Walter
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)
Weitzman, David


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Paget, R. T.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Palmer, Arthur
Skeffington, Arthur
Whitlock, William


Pargiter, G. A.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S.E.)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Wilkins, W. A.


Parkin, B. T.
Small, William
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Pavitt, Laurence
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Solomons, Henry
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Pentland, Norman
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Perry, E. G.
Steele, Thomas
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Popplewell, Ernest
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Prentice, Reginald
Stonehouse, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Stones, William
Winterbottom, R. E.


Probert, Arthur
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Stross,SirBarnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Woof, Robert


Randall, Harry
Summerskill, Dr. Shirley
Wyatt, Woodrow


Rankin, John
Swain, Thomas
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Redhead, Edward
Swingler, Stephen
Zilliacus, K.


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Symonds, J. B.



Reynolds, Gerald
Taverne, Dick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Mr. George Rogers and




Mr. Ifor Davies.




NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Fell, Anthony


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cary, Sir Robert
Fisher, Nigel


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Channon, H. P. G.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Chataway, Christopher
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Chichester-Clark, R.
Forrest, George


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Foster, Sir John


Astor, John
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)


Atkins, Humphrey
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Awdry, Daniel
Cole, Norman
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.


Baker, W. H. K.
Cooke, Robert
Gammans, Lady


Balniel, Lord
Cooper, A. E.
Gardner, Edward


Barlow, Sir John
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Gibson-Watt, David


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Cordle, John
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Corfield, F. V.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Berkeley, Humphry
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Glover, Sir Douglas


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Glyn, Sir Richard


Bessell, Peter
Crawley, Aidan
Gower, Raymond


Biffen, John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Grant, Anthony


Biggs-Davison, John
Crowder, F. P.
Grant-Ferris, R. (Nantwich)


Bingham, R. M.
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Gresham-Cooke, R.


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Curran, Charles
Grieve, Percy


Black, Sir Cyril
Currie, G. B. H.
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)


Blaker, Peter
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Dance, James
Gurden, Harold


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. (Morecambe)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Dean, Paul
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)


Brewis, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Doughty, Charles
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Bryan, Paul
Drayson, G. B.
Hastings, Stephen


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
du Cann, Edward
Hawkins, Paul


Buck, Antony
Eden, Sir John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward


Burden, F. A.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hendry, Forbes


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Emery, Peter
Higgins, Terence L.


Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Emmet, Hn. Mrs. Evelyn
Hiley, Joseph


Campbell, Gordon
Errington, Sir Eric
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Carlisle, Mark
Erroll, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Hirst, Geoffrey







Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Shepherd, William


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. (Tiverton)
Sinclair, Sir George


Hopkins, Alan
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Hordern, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Hornby, Richard
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Howard, Hn. G. R.(St. Ives)
Miscampbell, Norman
Speir, Rupert


Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Mitchell, David
Stainton, Keith


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Monro, Hector
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Hutchison, Michael Clark
More, Jasper
Stodart, J. A. (Edinburgh, W.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Summers, Sir Spencer


Jennings, J. C.
Murton, Oscar
Talbot, John E.


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Neave, Airey
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Jopling, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Teeling, Sir William


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard
Temple, John M.


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Onslow, Cranley
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)


Kilfedder, James A.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Kimball, Marcus
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Lagden, Godfrey
Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Lambton, Viscount
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Percival, Ian
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Peyton, John
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Litchfield, Capt. John
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Pitt, Dame Edith
Walder, David (High Peak)


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Pounder, Rafton
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Longbottam, Charles
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wall, Patrick


Longden, Gilbert
Prior, J. M. L.
Ward, Dame Irene


Loveys, Walter H.
Pym, Francis
Weatherill, Bernard


Lubbock, Eric
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Webster, David


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh (Hendon, S.)
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Martin
Whitelaw, William


MacArthur, Ian
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Renton, Rt. Hn. David
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Ridsdale, Julian
Wise, A. R.


McMaster, Stanley
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Robson Brown, Sir William
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Maitland, Sir John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Marlowe, Anthony
Roots, William
Wylie, N. R.


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Royle, Anthony
Younger, Hn. George


Marten, Neil
Russell, Sir Ronald



Mathew, Robert
St. John-Stevas, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maude, Angus E. U.
Scott-Hopkins, James
Mr. Batsford and Mr. McLaren.


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Sharples, Richard

Second Resolution—Income Tax (Charge and Rates for 1965–66)—read a Second time.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said

Resolution put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions).

The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 276.

Division No. 6.]
AYES
[4.8 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Boardman, H.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Alldritt, W. H.
Boston, T. C.
Coleman, Donald


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics S. W.)
Conlan, Bernard


Armstrong, Ernest
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Atkinson, Norman
Bowles, Frank
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Boyden, James
Crawshaw, Richard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Cronin, John


Barnett, Joel
Bradley, Tom
Crosland, Anthony


Baxter, William
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.


Beaney, Alan
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Dalyell, Tam


Bence, Cyril
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Darling, George


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Bessell, Peter
Buchanan, Richard (Gl'sg'w, Spr'burn)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Binns, John
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey


Bishop, E. S.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Delargy, Hugh


Blackburn, F.
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Dell, Edmund




Dempsey, James
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Diamond, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Randall, Harry


Doig, Peter
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Rankin, John


Donnelly, Desmond
Kelley, Richard
Redhead, Edward


Driberg, Tom
Kenyon, Clifford
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Reynolds, Gerald


Dunn, James A. (L'pool, Kirkdale)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dunnett, Jack (Nottingh'm, Central)
Lawson, George
Richard, Ivor


Edelman, Maurice
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Ledger, Ron
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)


English, Michael
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Ennals, David
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rose, Paul B.


Ensor, David
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rowland, Christopher


Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Lipton Marcus
Sheldon, Robert


Fernyhongh, E.
Lomas, Kenneth
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Finch, Harold
Loughlin, Charles
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Fitch, Alan
Lubbock, Eric
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)


Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McBride, Neil
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCann, J.
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)


Floud, Bernard
MacColl, James
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Foley, Maurice
MacDermot, Niall
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McGuire, Michael
Skeffington, Arthur


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McInnes, James
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Ford, Ben
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Small, William


Garrett, W. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Garrow, A.
Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Solomons, Henry


George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Ginsburg, David
MacPherson, Malcolm
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank


Gourlay, Harry
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Steele, Thomas


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Gregory, Arnold
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Stonehouse, John


Grey, Charles
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Stones, William


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Manuel, Archie
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Marsh, Richard
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Griffiths, Will (Manchester Exchange)
Mason, Roy
Summerskill, Dr. Shirley


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maxwell, Robert
Swain, Thomas


Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mayhew, Christopher
Swingler, Stephen


Hale, Leslie
Mellish, Robert
Symonds, J. B.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mendelson, J. J.
Taverne, Dick


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mikardo, Ian
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Millan, Bruce
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Hannan, William
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Harper, Joseph
Milne, Edward (Blythe)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Molloy, William
Thornton, Ernest


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Monslow, Walter
Thorpe, Jeremy


Hattersley, Ray
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Tinn, James


Hayman, F. H.
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Tomney, Frank


Hazell, Bert
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Tuck Raphael


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (SheffieldPk)
Urwin, T. W.


Heffer, Eric S.
Murray, Albert
Varley, Eric G.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Neal, Harold
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Newens, Stan
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wallace, George


Holman, Percy
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Warbey, William


Horner, John
Norwood, Christopher
Watkins, Tudor


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Oakes, Gordon
Weitzman, David


Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)
Ogden, Eric
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Howie, W.
Orbach, Maurice
Whitlock, William


Hoy, James
Orme, Stanley
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oswald, Thomas
Wilkins, W. A.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Owen, Will
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Padley, Walter
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)


Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)
Paget, R. T.
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Palmer, Arthur
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pargiter, G. A.
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Jackson, Colin
Parkin, B. T.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Janner, Sir Barnett
Pavitt, Laurence
Winterbottom, R. E.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Woof, Robert


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pentland, Norman
Wyatt, Woodrow


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Perry, E. C.
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Popplewell, Ernest
Zilliacus, K.


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Prentice, Reginald



Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Probert, Arthur
Mr. George Rogers and




Mr. Ifor Davies.







NOES


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Erroll, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fell, Anthony
McMaster, Stanley


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Fisher, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Patrick


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Maitland, Sir John


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
Marlowe, Anthony


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Forrest, George
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Astor, John
Foster, Sir John
Marten, Neil


Atkins, Humphrey
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mathew, Robert


Awdry, Daniel
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maude, Angus E. U.


Baker, W. H. K.
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Balniel, Lord
Gammans, Lady
Mawby, Ray


Barlow, Sir John
Gardner, Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. (Tiverton)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gibson-Watt, David
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Gilmour Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Berkeley, Humphry
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Glover, Sir Douglas
Miscampbell, Norman


Biffen, John
Glyn, Sir Richard
Mitchell, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Gower, Raymond
Monro, Hector


Bingham, R. M.
Grant, Anthony
More, Jasper


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Grant-Ferris, R. (Nantwich)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Black, Sir Cyril
Gresham-Cooke, R.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Blaker, Peter
Grieve, Percy
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bossom, Hn. Clive
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
Murton, Oscar


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Gurden, Harold
Neave, Airey


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Brewis, John
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. (Morecambe)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Onslow, Cranley


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Bryan, Paul
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Buchanan-smith, Alick
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Buck, Antony
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Heald Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Perclval, Ian


Campbell, Gordon
Hendry, Forbes
Peyton, John


Carlisle, Mark
Higgins, Terence L.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cary Sir Robert
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Channon, H. P. G.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pounder, Rafton


Chataway, Christopher
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hopkins, Alan
Prior, J. M. L.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hordern, Peter
Pym, Francis


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hornby, Richard
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Cole, Norman
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame P.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Cooke, Robert
Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)
Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Martin


Cooper, A. E.
Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill)
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Renton, Rt. Hn. David


Cordle, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Corfield, F. V.
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridsdale, Julian


Costain, A. P.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jennings, J. C.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Crawley, Aidan
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Roots, William


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Royle, Anthony


Crowder, F. P.
Jopling, Michael
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Curran, Charles
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott-Hopkins, James


Currie, G. B. H.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Sharples, Richard


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)
Shepherd, William


Dance, James
Kilfedder, James A.
Sinclair, Sir George


Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Kimball, Marcus
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John


Dean, Paul
Lagden, Godfrey
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lambton, Viscount
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Speir, Rupert


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stainton, Keith


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stanley, Hn. Richard


Doughty, Charles
Litchfield, Capt. John
Stodart, J. A. (Edinburgh, W.)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Studholme, Sir Henry


du Cann, Edward
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Eden, Sir John
Longbottom, Charles
Talbot, John E.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Loveys, Walter H.
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Emery, Peter
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Emmet, Hn. Mrs. Evelyn
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh (Hendon, S.)
Teeling, Sir William


Errington, Sir Eric
MacArthur, Ian
Temple, John M.







Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Walder, David (High Peak)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Wise, A. R.


Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wall, Patrick
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter
Ward, Dame Irene
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Weatherill, Bernard
Wylie, N. R.


Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Webster, David
Younger, Hn. George


Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wells, John (Maidstone)



Tweedsmuir, Lady
Whitelaw, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)
Mr. Batsford and Mr. McLaren.


Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Third and Fourth Resolutions agreed to

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS

[12th November]

Resolution reported,

Orders of the Day — TAX REBATES FOR EXPORTS

That provision shall be made for authorising the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to make payments out of the sums received by them on account of duties of customs and excise and purchase tax for the purpose of affording relief in respect of duties of customs and excise chargeable on hydrocarbon oils, vehicle excise duty and purchase tax incurred in connection with the production, manufacture or carriage of goods exported from the United Kingdom on or after 26th October 1964, for prescribing the conditions for, and the amounts of, such payments, and for supplementary purposes.

Resolution read a Second time.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90 (Ways and Means Resolutions), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution and upon the other Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means and agreed to this day and upon the Order [12th November] relating to Finance Bill (Procedure) by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Diamond, and Mr. MacDermot.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE

Bill to grant certain duties, alter other duties and to make further provision in connection with Finance, presented

accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be Printed [Bill 11.]

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of Section 3 of the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Act 1959 and Part I of, and Schedule 1 to, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 till the end of December, 1965, and of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act 1943, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act 1946 and (when in force) Part VII of the Licensing Act 1964 till the end of March, 1966, being expenses which under any Act are to be paid out of such moneys.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Resolution agreed to.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I do not know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether I am in order in raising this matter and if not I shall sit down, but before the House votes the money which is referred to I should say that it is for providing funds to continue certain parts of the Licensing Act.
Would I be in order in asking the Government whether they have any statement to make on the question of the licensing planning areas about which a statement was made last year?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member, but the Report stage of this particular Motion is almost purely formal. It is not in order to discuss anything except whether or not the Report shall be accepted.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(CONTINUANCE OF CERTAIN EXPIRING ENACTMENTS.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Williams: Before the Question of Clause 1 standing part of the Bill is decided may I, for the sake of information, deal with a matter contained in the Clause, in subsection (4), of which I have given notice to the responsible Minister of the Home Department? I do not propose to deal at any length with this matter, but, before I say anything more, perhaps it would be right that I should declare such interest as I have in it. Some hon. Members may know that I have the honour to be a member of the Co-operative Party. The matter I want particularly to raise is one which affects the Co-operative movement.
The provisions contained in subsection (4) have a history which goes back to 1945. In the Licensing Planning (Temporary Provisions) Act of that year it was laid down that liquor licences in war-damaged areas should be granted only following an inquiry by the licensing planning committees which were set up under the Act to review the circumstances of areas that had been badly damaged during the war to secure that the number and distribution of licensed premises in war-damaged areas met local requirements and in particular had regard to possible future developments.
Those provisions were incorporated in Part II of the Licensing Act, 1953, to which reference is made in this subsection, but in that Act provision was made subject to an annual renewal under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. By Section 59 of the 1953 Act no new licences would be granted unless the justices were satisfied that the planning committee had no objection to the grant. By the same Act, however, the Secretary of State was given power, under Section 55(4), to revoke the order constituting

a licensing planning committee and the licensing planning area if it appeared to him that it was no longer expedient that such an area should be treated in this special way.
The Home Secretary has used that power in a number of cases, but in a number of cases the local licensing planning areas still continue under the authority of the local licensing planning committees, notably in Birmingham, London and Plymouth, with which, in particular, the Co-operative movement is finding very considerable difficulty arising because of their continuance. The present Minister of State, Board of Trade in the 1962 debate on the Committee stage of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill moved that Part II of the 1953 Act should be deleted. He said that the licensing committees were redundant. His plea for the abolition of the areas was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
The then Parliamentary Secretary said that the areas needed more time to work out plans connected with the redevelopment of war-damaged areas, but that the Home Secretary would use firmly the powers that were given to him under Section 55 of the Act to end any areas that were regarded by him as no longer necessary. It was hoped continuously to keep these areas under review with a view to bringing them to an end within the next year or two. The present Minister of Land and Natural Resources thought that the Government, by failing to meet the plea put to him on that occasion, was considering vested interests rather than the public interest.
My right hon. Friend hoped that when the next Expiring Laws Continuance Bill came before the House something more than a progress report would be given. Indeed, in November of last year the then Home Secretary announced the setting up of a Departmental Committee charged with considering and reporting whether, amongst other things, in war-damaged areas there was a continuing need for the licensing planning machinery.
Despite that undertaking by the Minister, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, 1963, and the Licensing Act, 1964, have given a new lease of life to the licensing planning committees. My reason for seeking information arises from the undertakings given by the


Minister's predecessors, for the position now must be that most licensing planning committees have served their purpose and should cease to be. They were intended to be applied to the extensively war-damaged areas, which for the most part have now been replanned and redeveloped. In fact, licensing planning committees are now largely used merely to refuse grants of more licences within their areas. A virtual monopoly is given to existing licensees.
The procedure, as can be seen in the London area, with which I am more familiar than with other areas, makes a complete mockery of any suggestion that the only considerations weighing with the licensing planning committee are planning considerations. For instance, when the committee holds its inquiry to see whether any objections are made before the case can be taken to the brewster sessions, as well as the provision of maps, the addresses of licensed premises, and so on, it requires that notices should be sent to the local planning authority and to anybody in the area who might be interested.
What happens in practice is that, when the licensing committee, consisting of anything between 12 and 16 magistrates, meets the objectors, the objectors are represented by barristersat-law, by solicitors, by "friends" of all kinds, who, for the most part, represent people who have a financial interest in the prevention of competition. Although monopoly value payments were abolished some years ago, in practice the only effect of these special planning areas and planning committees is that monopolies still exist, although those who object to the development now have to pay nothing.
Generally, the functions of the licensing committee, as anybody who has ever appeared before one knows only too well, and the functions of the licensing bench which follows, if permission is given by the planning committee, are so blurred that the second hearing is nothing but a repetition of the first. The objectors are represented by precisely the same counsel and solicitors. The same arguments are advanced. The licensing committee deals with the matter in precisely the same way as did the planning committee.
I seek from the Minister some assurance that the licensing planning machinery which has so outlived its usefulness is at least in the process of being dismantled. We have not tabled an Amendment because we want to give the Departmental Committee of inquiry an opportunity to deal with the matter and dismantle the machinery as need arises. As the machinery is not uniformly applied and as it is necessary for applicants to present their cases not only on planning considerations but often in the face of opposition from vested interests concerned only to prevent the development of competition and preserve their own monopoly rights, it appears to us that the time must now be very close when planning committees can be brought to an end, except in areas where it can be clearly shown that there is still a considerable amount of redevelopment following wartime destruction and elsewhere be dealt with before the licensing justices alone.
These are the matters upon which we should be grateful for information from the Ministry. Before the matter goes to a vote, we should be glad to hear from him that attention is being given to these matters and that the time will not be unduly long delayed when former Ministers' promises are fulfilled by this Minister and these committees brought to an end.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I wish to add a little to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) since I was one of those who raised the matter on 28th November, 1962. It is on the report of that debate that some of the questions are being asked today. Bristol has a problem in the matter of licensing planning areas. I will not go on at great length about that. I have no personal interest in the matter, financial or otherwise, though I have studied the problem and a number of interests have approached me about it.
It appears that the existing state of affairs mitigates against those who would like to start up in the licensed trade, particularly those who want to sell drink in connection with other things, such as food. Examples of these people are licensed grocers. The difficulty arises because of the considerable wartime bomb damage. It is all very well for the


hon. and learned Gentleman to talk about the virtual monopoly of those who were in before the war. I believe that I am right in saying that the way in which it has been arranged is that for every public house or licensed premises destroyed in the war a notional barrellage is taken into account. I am not sure how it is worked out, but the number of barrels indicates to some extent the power and size of the licensed premises.
Until till the barrels held in reserve from bombed premises in the war are reallocated into new licensed premises, it is virtually impossible, at any rate very difficult, for anybody to get a licence. In the case of the City of Bristol there were an enormous number of public houses before the war. There are still plenty of them. It would seem that the existing machinery is likely to have a restrictive effect for many years to come, unless there is an alteration.
I draw the Minister's attention to what was said in November, 1962, by the then Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) said:
it will be possible in the next year to revoke licensing planning in something like half-adozen further areas.
This is the really important statement:
We shall continue to keep the matter under review and I hope that we shall bring it to an end in the next few years.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1962; Vol. 668, c. 625–6.]
That was in 1962. A "few years" have elapsed. Perhaps with the passing of a few more years we shall see the abolition of the whole system. No doubt the Minister will be able to inform the Committee.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Thomas): Sir Harry, may I, first, express the pleasure of us all at seeing you in the Chair for the first time as one of the Deputy-Speakers of the House. As a former member of the Chairmen's Panel, I take a special delight in welcoming you.
It is strange the things that happen to us in life, and that my first task in a debate in this Parliament should be to speak on licensing. It seems very rough justice indeed. I have now been at the Home Office a month and I am learning

a great many things. I am trying to discipline myself, but, of course, there are subjects like this one which have always held a fascinating interest for me.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Mr. W. T. Williams) outlined quite accurately the provisions of the Bill and mentioned the difficulties which the present machinery is causing. He expressed the anxiety, as I understood it—as did the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke)—that the machinery now operating may cause injustice and that the Departmental Committee might not be moving fast enough.
The Committee was set up only in April last. It is a very distinguished Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. J. Ramsay Willis, Q.C., and its terms of reference are:
To consider and report whether,

(a) in war-damaged areas to which Part II of the Licensing Act, 1953 applies, there is a continuing need for the licensing planning machinery for which it provides;
(b) in other areas of major redevelopment or more generally there is a need for this or other machinery for securing that the number, nature and distribution of licensed premises accord with local requirements; and
(c) in either case, if there is such a need, the machinery should apply to on-licences only or also to off licences."

This Committee has been very active. Appointed in April, it spent the time between April and July in collecting written evidence on the subject. One meeting of the Committee was held before the summer Recess. Two meetings have been held since, and it is hoped that the Committee will be able to meet at least once a month.
There are at present, if I may now answer the question put by the hon. Member for Bristol, West—18 licensing planning areas covering London, Birmingham, Bristol, Canterbury, Coventry, East Ham, West Ham, Gosport, Grimsby, Kingston-upon-Hull, Manchester, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Sheffield, Southampton, South Shields, Sunderland and Swansea. In 15—that is the important figure—of the 33 areas originally constituted, licensing planning has, with the local committee's consent, been brought to an end in the years 1955–1963.
This Departmental Committee expects to report next year, and in the light of its recommendations the House will


then be better placed to judge what is the need for licensing planning and what form, if any, it should take in the future. It is hoped that the House will have an opportunity of considering these issues before another Expiring Laws Continuance Bill falls to be introduced in 1965. Meanwhile, I am sure that the Committee will agree that there is no reasonable alternative, since the Departmental Committee is doing its work, but to continue the present arrangements for another 12 months.

Sir Edward Boyle: May I, briefly, welcome the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) in his new office. The first speech that I have heard him deliver in this House was on Thursday, 23rd November, 1950, on the subject of whether the Festival of Britain Exhibition should be open on a Sunday or not—perhaps a subject with which we were more immediately associated than the subject of licensing.
The Committee having heard his explanation, we shall, of course, agree with the Clause at it stands. I only hope that this Departmental Committee, which has started extremely well and has made good progress in its labours, will enable more progress to be made by the next time we discuss a similar Bill. Experience shows sometimes that, as with certain aspects of the criminal law, it occasionally becomes easier to add to the Schedule to the Bill rather than to replace it by permanent legis-lation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's forecast that we shall have progress reported by next year will be fulfilled.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I do not wish to appear more harsh than my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), but could the hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that the Committee will have completed its work by the time we consider a similar Bill next year? Will he also give an assurance that the Government will make it possible to discuss this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill?

Mr. George Thomas: Although I have been here only a month, I have been here

long enough to know that it would be foolish to give a guarantee. I only express a hope. I express the earnest hope that the Committee will have finished its deliberations next year.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(SHORT TITLE AND APPLICATION TO NORTHERN IRELAND.)

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I beg to move, in page 2, line 2, after "1919", to insert "continues".
I presume that it would be convenient to discuss the next Amendment with this one.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke): Yes.

Mr. MacDermot: These are two drafting Amendments which we propose at the request of the Northern Ireland Government so far as the operation of the Bill relates to Northern Ireland.
I can explain the matter very briefly. I invite hon. Members to look at Clause 1(3) of the Bill. They will see that it proposes to continue in force Section 3 of the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Act, 1959. It also makes a consequential amendment to suspend the effects of Section 10(3) of that Act. The purpose of these Amend-ments is to make it clear that that consequential amendment applies to Northern Ireland as well as the continuation of Section3.

Sir E. Boyle: I recall during recent years, on a number of occasions, Ministers moving drafting Amendments, and the question whether or not they were purely drafting leading to controversy in the Committee. The Government must not think that all the Amendments described as drafting will be accepted as such, but on this occasion the hon. and learned Gentleman has fully made his case.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 3, after first "and", insert:
amends section 10(3) thereof, and continues".—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Question proposed,  That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: Sir Harry, would it be appropriate here for me to refer to the Commonwealth Immigration Act?

The Deputy-Chairman: Consideration of that matter must wait until we reach the Schedule.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — Schedule.—(ACTS CONTINUED.)

Mr. R. T. Paget: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 13 and 14.
At this point, we are considering what are the rights, obligations and liberties of about 2 million foreigners who are either in this country or will he here during the forthcoming year. Of this total, 1½ million will be visitors, but 500, 000 will be here on a more permanent basis, some on labour permits, some on education permits and some permanently resident amongst us.
This is a subject which we English hon. Members, at any rate, should take a particular interest in since if it had not been for wave after wave of foreigners coming here most of us would probably simply net exist. We are the products of one wave of immigrants after another, for England is the great mother of Europe. That has been so for 500 years, because this is the land to which people who chose liberty have come.
We have those who fled from Germany and the oppression of the Empire, the weavers who came from the oppression in the Netherlands by Spain, the Huguenots from France, and those who lied from oppression in Russia. All these people came to England. They have enriched our nation, brought us their skills and made England what it is. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is here because of the Social Democrats who chose freedom here from Russia. I am here because the Huguenots chose religious freedom in Britain.
Upon that basis this nation is built up. Yet we in this House are, for the fiftieth time, to deny these people the most elementary of human rights—the right to live under the rule of law. That is what this provision means. We are renewing emergency wartime powers given to the Government on 4th August, 1914, and re-

newed again without discussion in 1919 and renewed annually since then. These emergency powers give complete control to the Executive over the liberties of these people who come here. They are now more or less consolidated in the Statutory Rules and Orders, 1953, which provide the most Draconian powers to the Government.
Entry to this country is subject to the say-so of a number of immigration officers and from their decision there is really not even an appeal to the Executive. The immigration officer can say, "Back you go"—as he did to the Williams family of Cape coloureds who came to this country because they wanted to work in freedom here rather than in the oppression in their own country. But the immigration official, whether rightly or wrongly, said "No", and back to sea went the family again. Meanwhile, people intervened so that when their ship returned here, back they came with it.
This seems to be an excessively autocratic power to be exercised by a single official. We had a similar case with the two Canadians who came over to visit their grandmother, hoping to maintain themselves while they were here and before they went back home. Back across the Atlantic they went on a single issue on which there was not even an Executive appeal. The Williams' case was sad because the family had spent £1, 500 for their passages and the decision of the immigration official appeared to wipe that out.
There is also the question of the "black book" which the Estimates Committee heard about. It is a book containing about 7, 000 and more names and is supplied to immigration officers. It sets out the people who are not to be admitted. I have not the slightest doubt that the vast majority of the people in that book are properly excluded from our shores as criminals of various types, as subversives or as security risks.
But in a book like that there are almost bound to be mistakes. People may have been put there as a result of false information, or because their names happen to resemble others. Yet there is no procedure of any kind whereby any man can ever get his name out of that book. He is merely turned away and given no reason or indication as to why. If any hon. Member has tried to find out, he has


been told that he cannot be given the reason because it is a security matter.
But, of course, only a very small percentage of the 7, 000 names in that book have anything to do with security. As so often happens, security is an excuse for arbitrary behaviour when that is convenient to the Executive. When the aliens do get into the country, they are subject to arbitrary arrest without charge and without explanation. They can be arrested by the Executive and they have no right to be told why. Sometimes they are not told why. If there is no country to which they can be sent they can be indefinitely imprisoned without charge.
These are all powers which we are being asked to give once more to the Executive. It is not unreasonable that, if foreign visitors do not behave themselves, we should ask them to go. Nor is it unreasonable that we should tell them why. But with residents here it is a very different matter. Many residents have never seen any other country with their "knowing eye" They came here as babies. They are married to citizens and their children are citizens but, simply by an executive act, they can be exiled from this country which is the only country which they have ever known and can be separated from their wives and children. Those are not reasonable rights.
5.0 p.m.
We take power not only to expel them, but to expel them on a particular ship to a particular destination where the Government might want them for purposes of punishment, thereby by executive action, as in the case of Dr. Soblen, which hon. Members will remember, finding a way round the extradition procedure.
Lest us compare what we are doing today with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as passed by the General Assembly of the United Nations. I will quote a few of its Articles. Article 7 says:
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.
That we are denying to all these aliens. Article 9 says:
No one should be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

That is precisely the power which we are now giving to the Home Office.
Article 10 says:
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights…
This, again, we are denying to these aliens among us.
Article 15 says:
No one shall be…denied the right to change his nationality.
We provide no right at all in these directions. That may go outside the Bill and I will not proceed further with it, but if hon. Members do not like my quotations from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as it comes to us from the United Nations, there is a more ancient provision which will be found in the Bible and which says:
One law shall be to him that is home born. and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.
There is something to be said for that, at least as a proposition.
I should like to quote from something which the present Attorney-General said on this subject last year. He put it so well that I cannot do better than quote it. He said:
The treatment of aliens is one of the tests of how a country conducts itself, or, at least, it ought to be. The deportation of aliens, going as it does to the root of individual liberty, is a matter of great concern to all those who have any interest in human rights…
In my view, there is a need for a fundamental review of the aliens law for many reasons. It is a basic principle of the administration of our justice and, indeed, of the rule of law itself, that the law should be certain and ascertainable. Another basic principle of the fair administration of justice is that the administration of the law should be frank and impartial and should be seen to be frank and impartial. In my submission, the present aliens law infringes both those principles of the rule of law.
Of course it does.
My right hon. and learned Friend went on to quote what Mr. Justice Barry said about the incomprehensibility of this law and went on to say:
The use of the power of a Home Secretary to choose the carrier and to put an alien upon an aeroplane is a use which enables extradition to be accomplished by means which deprive the alien of the remedy, or the protection, of reference to the court of his case. If it is desired that the Home Secretary should be given this power and that the principle of the non-extradition of political offenders


should no longer be honoured by this House, let the law say so in terms, let not this immense power be given administratively, so to speak, through the back door.
That is what we are doing now. My right hon and learned Friend went on to say that we could say to an alien:
'Get out and stay out.'
He added that we should not say:
Get cut and go to the place I choose you should go to.'
Finally, my right hon. and learned Friend said:
The exercise of the Home Secretary's discretion in a fundamental field of human liberty is in effect unchallengeable. There may be more than one lawyer in the House today who has had experience in court itself of the sense of frustration, indeed almost shame, that some of our judges have felt about this wholly oppressive and unsatisfactory arrangement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 300–5.]
It is not only my right hon. and learned Friend who has spoken in these terms. My hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Home Office and one hon. Member after another has spoken of the utter unsatisfactoriness of arbitrary administrative powers affecting liberty to this degree.
Why should we put ourselves in this position? After all, apart from short periods of unfortunate administration, on the whole our treatment of foreigners has not been too bad. These horrible arbitrary powers have, on the whole, not been used more arbitrarily than the powers which, less arbitrary in substance, other nations have. Why should we put ourselves into this false position and have to hang our heads at the United Nations and say that we cannot ratify the Declaration of Human Rights? It seems so unnecessary.
The Americans have done it. By their Law 414 of 1952, the Americans, in effect, have brought foreigners within the rule of law. They have provided tribunals to look into and to ascertain the facts and to give judgment in all those matters where we act arbitrarily. They have set the example. Why do we have to go on doing it in this way?
I shall make a suggestion about the manner in which we should deal with this matter. We need legislation. Of course, that legislation must provide wide discretions to the Home Office on matters of

policy, for, in general, whom one admits and does not admit to the country must be a matter of policy. It may be that we should look at the policy rather differently and that one's object should not be to find a reason for keeping people out, but to find a reason for bringing them in.
I know of no greater enrichment which a country can find than having ready-made and skilled operatives which it has had neither to rear nor train coming to it. One used to think of nations being rich because of their natural resources, but all our experience since the war has taught us that the one natural resource which matters is the supply of skilled labour which one has or can attract.
The miracles we have seen, the German miracle, the Hong Kong miracle, the French miracle and our own miracle, for that matter, if one goes back to the Industrial Revolution, have all sprung from the supply of skilled workers who could take up the expansion and add to the wealth of the nation. The idea that we need to keep out people who would wish to bring their skills and capacity to us is erroneous.
However, although in general it is a matter of policy that the Home Office must have discretion, political asylum is an ancient and proud tradition of our nation and I do not see why that should be a matter of discretion. In extradition proceedings the courts try the issue if it is raised and decide whether it is a case for political asylum. Why cannot they try all such claims?
Finally, why should not reasons be given? It is occasionally said that one must not breach security, but so rarely is security involved and so often is it the mere excuse for arbitrariness. In all conscience, the Americans are not less security conscious than we are and they do it.
While there must be discretion about who comes here, when they are here why should they not enjoy the same rule of law that we have? There may be some instances for exception and one could consider those, but in general why should aliens not be under our law and have the same conditions of freedom from arbitrary arrest?
While discretion about the expulsion of visitors should probably be given to


the Home Office, surely residents are entitled to be given reasons for their expulsion and surely when expulsion means the destruction of a family or is an offence against human rights, it is not a matter for executive decision taken privately behind doors, but is a matter which justice requires should be decided in the courts.
I ask the Home Office to agree to this. It is the procedure which we adopted when we got the Army Act. It is a procedure which I claim to have invented. For years, the Army Act was a collection of orders and regulations and year after year everybody said, "Well, of course, we would like to have an Act, but it can never be done". But with a Conservative Government, then with a narrow majority, we put up some obstruction, and Lord Head came to see me—I was running the obstruction—and I said, "What we want is an Act, and I will tell you how to do it. Set up a Select Committee of the House and a Committee from the War Office. Let those two Committees, working together, work out what can be done and when they have done that let us have the Parliamentary draftsmen to draft the Bill."
That is exactly what we did. It took us about 18 months. We worked as a Select Committee—and a Select Committee forgets what party it belongs to. We worked as a unit. We had a job to do and we did it. After 18 months, we brought out a unanimous Report and the Bill came before the House. That was the present Army Act. The Government and the House accepted it without a single Amendment. Five years afterwards, when, according to its provisions, the Act came for review before this House, I think that only three minor Amendments were necessary.
This seems to be an example of highly efficient legislation suitable for this sort of occasion, and suitable particularly where a Government have a narrow majority and are hard-pressed for time on the Floor of the House. The advantage of this procedure is that it will take no time on the Floor of the House at all. We go upstairs and work this out. We get the services of Parliamentary draftsmen at the right end of the year. We cannot ask for them during the 100 days, or whatever it is called, with the rush of

legislation taking place, but when there is a slackening that is the time when we can do this kind of work. It seems to me that this is the way to do it.
I would make one other addition, because I believe that this Committee would have the advantage of 1952 Law 414 of the American Laws. They are the people who work by our system of law. It seems that this is the way that it should be done and I believe that we would, as we did in the Army Act, come to a unanimous recommendation.
I would end with this final plea. There is this further thing to be said. Here we are concerned with the rights of individuals and the protection of individuals against the arbitrariness of the Executive. This is what all this is about. If Parliament has any right or justification to exist at all, that is its most important purpose. Therefore, legislation dealing with this, which is so particularly Parliament's business—more Parliamentary business even than Government business—is the very kind of legislation in which the House of Commons should have a very special part in its creation, not in its mere approval.
5.15 p.m.
I would urge that the Government accept this suggestion, get away from the excuse which we have heard year after year, "Yes, but it is not the time now." and now that 50 years of this prevarication have gone by say, "Let the House of Commons solve this as they solved the other".

Mr. J. Grimond: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has a most honourable record on this matter. Year after year he has raised this question of the treatment of aliens, and I believe that the Committee is much indebted to him and will also admire the way in which this afternoon he has overcome a certain disability of voice, and once more put before us this question which is, as he says, of great importance for individual liberty and for the good name of our country.
There are several objections to the present method of our treatment of aliens. First, as was eloquently said by the Attorney-General last year, it is uncertain. Secondly, it is liable to be oppressive. In saying that, I certainly do not want to criticise in any way the humanity of the Home Office. Home


Secretaries are liable to get into very hot water at very short notice and they have extremely difficult matters to administer.
The record of the present Home Secretary's predecessor is well known to the House. He indeed got into very hot water. I believe that he was made the scapegoat in many ways for procedures which were not his own responsibility, and I am sure that he discharged his duties as conscientiously and humanely as he possibly could, within the procedures laid down. While there is no doubt that occasionally our regulations are seriously oppressive, much more often, I think, they are mildly oppressive in that more and more people travel the world these days and expect to be treated as members of the human race and not as members of some nation to be put through a different Customs entrance procedure, to be made to fill in different forms and so on. It is important for us to keep up to date in the general world movement of the obstacles to travel being removed.
This brings me to the next objection to our regulations; they are ineffective. As is often pointed out, it is easy for train robbers to leave the country or for M. Bidault to enter it, certainly easier than for respectable members of the community to do so, for the great bulk of aliens when travelling must fill in forms and the information be filed, docketed, examined and the details eventually stored somewhere in a Government Department, in which, we have been given to understand, there are some 2 million cards, no doubt periodically examined.
Occasionally we find on the record details of how the hon. and learned Member for Northampton has entered the country by filling in the necessary forms describing himself as Adolf Hitler. I have no doubt that in due course someone will get around to this and a question will be addressed to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Needless to say he will find little difficulty in establishing that he is not Adolf Hitler. This all goes to show that a great deal of time is wasted under the present system.
The next objection which is often raised against these procedures is that they are not incorporated in permanent

Statutes which have been properly discussed in the House but are subject to this annual procedure. For my part, I am less convinced by this objection. I believe that by chance, so to speak, there is a certain amount to be said for having an annual debate on this Act. It enables us to examine certain issues that arise from time to time. But I believe that our treatment of aliens is not one of the proudest features of our legal system. It is certainly uncertain and I believe that it is failing in its main object.

Mr. Paget: There is the procedure under the Army Act, wherein machinery was provided for an annual debate. Under the Act we are discussing, surely it could be provided that the Home Secretary should make a report on aliens and that that would be debatable each year?

Mr. Grimond: I appreciate that, and it certainly might be one of the matters which the Committee could consider.
Being a member of the Liberal Party has this feature: one has not recently had to rebut in office speeches made in opposition. Naturally, for my hon. Friends in the Liberal Party and I this is a temporary feature of our position, but at the moment it allows us a certain latitude in debate. I recall powerful speeches made on this subject by practically the whole legal representation on the Government Front Bench.
The Attorney-General has made the same suggestion as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. Several columns in HANSARD, much of it lucid, forceful and full of logic, are attributed to him, and I have no doubt that the officials of his Department will inform the Home Secretary of the intent of those speeches. The Home Secretary has taken part in these debates in past years. He is highly humane and logical, as a result of which he, too, must be impressed by his previous speeches. I am not so sure about the Under-Secretary.
Another feature of these debates is that most of those who take part in them would not have been in this country had they not got in as aliens. That applies to myself and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. Considering the number of people bearing his name, it is obvious that it must have been easy for his forefathers to enter the country.


I will leave that matter there, for there is no need for me to go over the arguments in detail. The Minister without Portfolio, as well as all the others, is prominently on record as having drawn attention to many of the existing failings. These arguments surely need not be deployed yet again, particularly to a Labour Front Bench.

Sir E. Boyle: There is one slight difference between the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and that made by the Attorney-General last year, in that the precedent suggested by the Attorney-General concerned the establishment of a Royal Commission. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton has suggested the establishment of a Select Committee. I need not mention the rather unhappy history of the Liberal Party in recommending Select Committees, both at the time of the Maurice debate and in 1924. It would be interesting to know where the Leader of the Liberal Party stands on that point now.

Mr. Grimond: What about the precedent of the Marconi scandal? If the Government were anxious to cover up anything, this might be a useful precedent. But Select Committees can bring out facts. I hesitate to cross swords, particularly when it comes to historical knowledge, with the right hon. Gentleman who now represents the Home Office on the "shadow" Front Bench, but I cannot think that his are particularly powerful precedents. In any case, I do not think that either the hon. and learned Member for Northampton or myself are particular about the form of the inquiry, so long as it follows the general procedure used over the Army Act.
It would be a useful inquiry. As the hon. and learned Member for Northampton pointed out, it might find that we should have an annual debate on this matter. It might find that in many ways wide discretion must be left to the authorities to deal with aliens. I do not think that he or I want to prejudice the findings of the inquiry by suggesting what it might recommend.
It is high time that we reconsidered the whole position of aliens, for the situation has changed out of all recognition since the First World War, from when

this Statute dates. I should have thought that many of the arguments which have been urged in previous debates are valid today and therefore, without tying myself to any particular form of inquiry, I suggest that the case for an inquiry has been made out and I have no doubt that the Home Secretary will view it sympathetically and will accept the idea.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: For the past 20 years we have had a debate every year along the lines which are still proceeding today. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) comprehensively, lucidly, powerfully and eloquently restated the case, and I certainly have no intention of taking a large part of the time of the Committee saying "ditto" to him.
In each of those years a group of hon. Members have repeated most of the arguments, no doubt not so well, but quite substantially, that my hon. and learned Friend advanced again today. I am happy to think that I have taken part in, I think, every one of those debates.
Among the little band of people who on every occasion during those 20 years have taken the time of the Committee to deal with this question, there are a number who now sit on the Government Front Bench. There is the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and the Minister without Portfolio.
The Leader of the Liberal Party said what an advantage it was to be an hon. Member of the Liberal Party because he did not have to repudiate in office what he had said in opposition. To me it is an even happier lot to be an hon. Member of the Labour Party, because when in Government one can give effect to one's speeches made in opposition.

Mr. Grimond: Would the hon. Member include himself in that?

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: What I am saying is that the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and the Minister charged with responsibility for law reform—and I see coming in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who has made powerful and eloquent speeches on this subject—now have the responsibility and, indeed, the opportunity of doing what the right hon. Gentleman was emphasising


the Liberal Party could not do, namely, to give effect to the propositions which, year after year and over half a generation, have been advanced to the House of Commons.
Something has been said about the practice of the Home Office. This has varied. There have been periods when most of us have been thoroughly ashamed of its practice. There have been other periods when it has acted with a reasonably civilised approach. Reference has been made to the predecessor in office of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I am not concerned to deny his sincerity. I am not concerned to deny that he acted responsibly and as he thought humanely according to his lights. But I think that most of us would agree that his lights were often lamentably dim. There were many things which he could not see which were plain to the rest of the world and certainly to the rest of the House of Commons. One has only to mention one name, Soblen—and I do not want to take time by mentioning more—to realise that it would be difficult to say a single word to rescue the reputation of this country from the ignominy with which the Soblen case and its handling by the then Home Secretary surrounded our reputation in the world.
I do not wish to take longer or to repeat any of the arguments. Like others, I am not wedded to the proposal which my hon. and learned Friend has made. Our difficulty on these occasions is that we cannot discuss details. We cannot propose Amendments. We can only say "Yes" or "No" to the proposition that the Act shall remain law for another year. We have said "Yes" for not merely 20 but 50 years. I do not see why a Select Committee would not be a good way to deal with this matter, and the precedent of the Army Act seems to me apt. But if this is not the case let us deal with the matter in some other way. Now we have the opportunity to practise what we have been preaching for so long. Let us not neglect the opportunity to put this arbitrary power behind us and make sure that people who live in our midst live on the same terms as the rest of us and are not subject to the arbitrary power of the Executive or of a Minister in any way or in any circumstances in which other citizens are not subject.

Mr. George Thomas: I am not seeking to bring the debate to an end. I thought that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervened at this stage.
It has long been established in the House of Commons that when human rights are at stake hon. and right hon. Members on both sides show a very deep interest. It is not surprising, therefore, that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who has such an honourable record in this regard, and the Leader of the Liberal Party referred to the number of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have made great, stirring speeches on this subject. I was interested in the statement of my hon. and learned Friend and the Leader of the Liberal Party that they would not be here if we had not permitted aliens to enter this country. I am a Welshman, and to the Welsh the English are immigrants because the Celts were here first.
I believe that our treatment of aliens is not a matter of secondary importance. It is an indication of the basic values on which our public policy is founded. The refusal of permission to land or a decision to deport an individual is fraught with such enormous consequences for the person concerned and for his family that the Committee is justified in exercising a jealous scrutiny of the way in which the Executive conducts itself in these matters.
We are dealing not with chattels but with people. Hon. Members on both sides will, I hope, concur in our view that there are no unimportant people in the world. Above all, we want to deal with people seeking entry to our shores on a basis of compassion and humane consideration. There are basic humane rights which no civilised immigration laws can or will ignore. Respect for the dignity of all people, regardless of whether by Providence they are born here or in another land, is a fundamental prerequisite for a good society, and this is the basis on which this Administration approaches the question of immigration law.
It is true that aliens lack protection because they are not citizens of our land, and our obligation to exercise the utmost care in taking decisions whether to allow them to land or to deport them is a very strong one indeed.
In view of the very large number of new Members of the House, I think that it would be useful if very briefly I outlined the basis on which control is exercised. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton said, we work from the Aliens Order, 1953, which consolidated previous Orders as amended by the Aliens Order, 1957 (which eased the requirements regarding registration at hotels), and the Aliens Order, 1960 (which exempted resident aliens from police registration). All three Orders were made under the 1914 Act as extended by Section 1 of the 1919 Act. They enable the Secretary of State to exercise such control over foreign nationals as may from time to time be necessary. I believe that on both sides of the Committee there will be recognition of the fact that such control is necessary from time to time. They provide in particular for such matters as the landing and embarkation of foreigners, the control of their employment or occupation here, the registration of addresses and personal particulars, and, of course, the deportation of undesirables.
There has been much criticism of the fact that what was originally granted as a temporary measure has come up for renewal for 40 years and more. The right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) last year, when he was Home Secretary, acknowledged the basis of the criticism that this annual procedure of what I might term the aliens legislation had to be gone through. I believe that everyone now agrees that the Alien Restriction Acts of 1914 and 1919 must eventually be superseded by permanent legislation. The Committee will appreciate, however, that this Administration has been in office for one month only. We have not had time to formulate definite propositions.
The general objective is, however, clear enough. It is to reconcile an effective control with a compassionate and humane treatment of the individuals arriving here and to face up to the question of permanent legislation. My right hon. and learned Friend agrees that it is undesirable that legislation concerning the life of so many people should be dealt with in this way. My own instinct is in full agreement with that of hon. Members who want to see permanent

legislation. I understand, however, that there are many complications in this matter, and I must ask my hon. Friends and the rest of the Committee to give us time to examine the problem. My right hon. and learned Friend will look at this matter very carefully indeed.
It is clear that under contemporary conditions we cannot revert to the open-door policy of last century. Individual foreign nationals against whom there are serious personal objections have to be guarded against. Every country in the world has to do this. But it is important for us to ensure that no foreign national who may be eligible for entry is turned away in undue haste or without full consideration being given to what is urged in his favour. We are resolved to ensure that even when people are refused permission to land there shall be very opportunity for them, not only to advance the arguments in their favour, but, where necessary, to make contact with their relatives or other connections who are here.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would my hon. Friend include in what he is saying, which we are listening to with great sympathy, the right of a man who is refused entrance to know why, so that he has an opportunity of replying to it, or of explaining it away?

Mr. Thomas: I do not think that I can give a categorical assurance about all cases on this question, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we will look at the point that he has made.
Mr. hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton also reminded us that we ought to be more concerned about getting people in than keeping people out, and he referred justifiably to the great heritage which we in these islands enjoy, particularly the various groups of people who have come from other lands. The process still continues. Roughly, 16, 000 aliens stay here every year as it is, and I hope to give the Committee figures which will put in perspective the question of those people who are not allowed admission, but I want to deal a little further with what my hon. and learned Friend said.
One of the main criticisms advanced against our present system is that there should be a formal right of appeal for


any alien refused permission to land, and my hon. and learned Friend referred to that this afternoon. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would not be averse to such a right of appeal if a practical way could be found. He certainly would not rule the suggestion out, but any appeal would have to be directed purely to fact finding, for the ultimate responsibility as to whether an alien is to be admitted or not must at the end of the day rest with the Secretary of State and nobody else.
During the year ended 30th September last nearly 2½ million foreign nationals were granted leave to land; nearly 2½ million foreign nationals, just about equal to the entire population of Wales—I must be forgiven for making these important illustrations; an increase of 250, 000 or 12 percent. over the corresponding period of 1962–63. Against the total of million arrivals of foreign passengers the figure of 3, 515 refusals of leave to land during the same period can be seen in a better perspective: 3, 515 refused leave to land, 24 million people given permission to land. This works out at about one refusal for every 700 people admitted to our shores.
The Committee may wish for some indication of the kind of cases involved. Nearly half of the total, 1, 568, were refused admission because they had come to work here but they lacked a valid labour permit; 563 had insufficient means to support themselves during their proposed stay in this country; 74 were unacceptable on medical grounds; 95 were stowaways: 316 had no valid travel document and 57 were coming without a visa when they should have possessed one; 273 were seeking permanent settlement for which they were ineligible; and a further 279 were what were called technical refusals.
5.45 p.m.
I looked into this. I discover they are largely passengers in transit through this country, and most of them, it is true, are Stateless aliens. They are allowed to continue their journey under suitable arrangements. A refusal of leave to land may be necessary because an alien has been deported from some other country and is passing through the United Kingdom on his way home, or it may be on account of difficulties over his

documentation, which may be of very restricted validity.
The remaining 290 people who were refused permission to land on our shores could be described as undesirables for various reasons, and it is unfortunate that, although there are no unimportant people, in the world there are people whom to admit would create a social problem here or aggravate problems which already exist.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, but he said people who were refused leave to land were undesirable people. It would be fairer—would it not? —to say that they were refused leave to land because it was thought they were undesirable people, because it might well have been that if they had had some knowledge of what was alleged against them and had had some opportunity of dealing with it perhaps the Home Office might have been convinced in a large number of cases that they were not so undesirable as they seemed.

Mr. Thomas: I would not like the Committee to feel that I had suggested that all who are refused are undesirable.

Mr. Silverman: No, but those deemed to be.

Mr. Thomas: I only said it of just over 290. I do not wish to quarrel with my hon. Friend. It may be—who knows? —that some of them might be able to establish a case, but the immigration officers, to whom I should like to pay high tribute, have an exacting task. They are given a task which no hon. Member in this Committee would like to assume. Let me say to the Committee that after being in this office a month, and having myself to take decisions which affect real people, I know that it causes salt tears and heartbreak if the decision is a wrong one. It is not an easy thing to do, to decide whether other people shall stay here, or go out, or whether they should be admitted. I do not like the job of doing that. At least, I like my job—it would not be honest to say otherwise—but I do not like that part of the job. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Hampstead and other hon. Members who have occupied positions at the Home Office will agree that it is a test of stamina


to have to deal with these human cases. If it is so for me, it is so for the immigration officers. I salute these people who, dealing with millions coming to our shores, are able satisfactorily to deal with the overwhelming majority.
Hon. Members are understandably anxious about the question of deportation and the manner in which deportations are conducted. The number of foreign nationals deported in recent years has been of the order of 100 a year. In 1963, the total was 60. During the first nine months of this year, 44 deportations were carried out. When it is proposed to deport an alien who has been settled here for two years or more, the practice since 1956 has been to give him, except in a security case or where deportation is recommended by a criminal court, an opportunity to make representations to, and to be legally represented before, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bow Street. Since these arrangements were made, 109 aliens have been eligible to make representations. Only 59 have decided to avail themselves of the opportunity. The Chief Magistrate has considered 57 of these cases and concurred in the proposal to deport in 42 cases. So far, there has been no deportation when the Chief Magistrate did not concur when the matter was put before him.
Since the total number of aliens in the United Kingdom is always well over 400, 000, the deportation figures are an indication that the overwhelming majority of these people who have come to live amongst us are well-conducted people whom we are glad to have as neighbours.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton raised the question of how we should proceed about permanent legislation and I am sorry that I did not deal with the point earlier when I turned to that subject. My hon. and learned Friend has suggested a Select Committee. Another suggestion was for a Royal Commission, and the example of how we dealt with the Army Act has been quoted. There were, of course, differences between the Army Act and the Aliens Act which, my hon. and learned Friend will be quick to realise, raise quite different issues. The aliens orders are not particularly complicated and while permanent legislation to replace them will be considered, the issues are of a different kind from those arising

on the Army Act. They are issues of public policy such as Parliament itself might wish to debate in the ordinary way rather than to refer them to a Committee upstairs, however select might be its membership.
The Committee will realise that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and those of us who are privileged to serve with him in the Home Office are resolved to see that the treatment of aliens is dealt with in a manner commensurate with the rich heritage of these islands. We dislike the necessity for controls, but in the world as we find it they are essential in the national interest.
I assure my hon. and learned Friend that what he has said this afternoon will be borne in mind. The assurance which I can give to the Committee for my right hon. and learned Friend and for the present Administration is that if in the administration of these aliens laws we make mistakes and errors of judgment—and it would be remarkable if we or any other Government made no mistakes—we are resolved to err on the side of compassion and human kindness. We want the aliens laws to operate in a way that will at once not only protect our national interest, but also protect our good name.

Mr. Henry Brooke: I liked the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, and I liked particularly and wish to endorse his tribute to the immigration officers. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not seeking to find fault with him by rising this afternoon. I recognise that he has had only a few weeks in office. I know how much I felt that I had to learn after three or four weeks. The hon. Gentleman has done very well in his first speech on behalf of the Home Office in a debate on a Bill.
I hoped, however, that the hon. Gentleman would be a little more forthcoming as regards permanent legislation. In corresponding debates on previous Expiring Laws Continuance Bills, I made it clear that in my view it was essential in the next Parliament to put this matter on a permanent basis. It is not possible to defend much longer the continuance of the control by this method from year to year. I recognise the difficulties. I listened to what the Joint Under-Secretary said, but he did not appear to me to have


gone any further in pledging permanent legislation than I had gone towards the end of the last Parliament.

Mr. George Thomas: The right hon. Gentlemen will, of course, know that he had taken no steps whatever to provide permanent legislation for this Session of Parliament.

Mr. Brooke: I entirely agree. I am not blaming the hon. Gentleman for not producing it on this occasion. This is a very big matter, and I should like to illustrate that by bringing to the notice of the Committee the sort of question which the House of Commons will have to decide before it puts this subject into permanent form.
First, however, I should like to invite the attention of the Committee to the fact that the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman showing the very small percentage of people who are refused permission to land is a tribute to the reasonableness of the Home Office over the years. It is not true to say, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said, that the Home Office is apt to act arbitrarily in these matters for the convenience of the Executive. I know, and everybody else who has held office at the Home Office knows, that the difficult cases are considered with great care. It is not true, as I have seen alleged, that somebody may be turned back at the ports because the immigration officer on duty happens to have a headache, or something of that kind. Difficult cases are referred right up, maybe to the Home Secretary himself. In my view, very few mistakes are made, although, as the hon. Gentleman said, none of us would claim that the immigration control never makes a mistake at all.
6.0 p.m.
I thought that the deportation figures which the hon. Gentleman quoted also illustrated how reasonably that power in respect of aliens had been exercised, and that should be so. But I am certain he would agree that we need the power of deportation, because some people may arrive in this country and then information may come to light which indicates that they should not be here and should he got rid of as soon as possible.
I admired the hon. Gentleman's words about approaching all these immigration cases with compassion and sympathy, but

there was very little compassion or sympathy from the party opposite when an American Fascist named Rockwell arrived in this country. The party opposite showed no sympathy or compassion towards him and demanded that I should get rid of him as quickly as possible, which I did. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that compassion and sympathy are not the prerogative of any one Government or any one Administration. As I say, individual mistakes may have been made, but in general this work has been well done, and I hope will continue to be well done.
I agree that the question of appeal is a difficult one. I gave a lot of personal thought to it, but I do not as yet see the answer. It has been suggested that other countries do this better, and that they give greater opportunity to people to establish their case to come in. But if one is going to give greater opportunity in twat sense by way of appeal, there must be some kind of Ellis Island procedure, on which so far we have firmly turned our backs. We shall need an Ellis Island procedure by which, when a person who arrives cannot satisfy the authorities that he has a right to be allowed to stay here, he can be kept somewhere—I hope not in a police cell—for possibly some considerable time until he has exercised his appeal rights, or whatever they may be, and the matter can be settled.
This is one question which the Committee or the House will have to face when we come to permanent legislation. Do we, or do we not, want a kind of isolation hospital where a person who has arrived here, but cannot immediately establish his right to land, shall be kept for days or maybe weeks until the matter is finally determined by the Home Secretary on the recommendation, perhaps, of some appeal tribunal? It is not an easy question.
I was aware of this difficulty in the Williams case. Everybody had much sympathy with the Williams family, but that family were doing what we never allow aliens to do, that is to say, they came here with no work permit, and with a desire to come here to look round for work. If we allowed that in the Williams case, why not in hundreds or thousands of other cases where aliens would dearly


like the chance to come to this country and look round for work?
Hitherto we have taken the view that, this not being a country of general immigration, it is right that those who are hoping to work here should obtain a work permit, and, indeed, a firm prospect of a job before they can be allowed to come. I think that that is the appropriate way of proceeding. The hon. Gentleman said that he and his right hon. and learned Friend were going to ensure that anybody who was stopped at the port was given every opportunity of getting in touch with friends or relations in this country. There is no new departure in practice there. There is no change at all. That was the instruction to immigration officers throughout my term of office, and, so far as I know, for years back. Anybody who arrived at the port and appeared not to be able to justify his being given leave to land was offered the fullest opportunity to get in touch with friends or relations by telephone, or with a Member of Parliament, or anybody else. Nobody was denied that, and I hope that that situation will continue.
Let me quote one other case which occurred towards the end of the last Parliament. Somebody came here claiming political asylum. He had no papers with him. He had no identification at all. The immigration officers knew virtually nothing about him, except what he said. One cannot just let in somebody like that without taking time for inquiries, because, if it were possible to get in in that way, many of the most undesirable types might arrive, say that they were being persecuted in their own country, and ask for political asylum. One could, therefore, not accept that man's request for political asylum point blank, but the difficulty I have mentioned arose acutely. One was sympathetic to the man concerned, yet it was very difficult to know what to do with him until one could obtain further information from our representatives in the country from which he came.
The principal point I am seeking to make is that if one is going to alter the control in the ways which have been suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), and others, it may be that

the House will have to accept some kind of Ellis Island concept for this country, which hitherto we have thought distasteful, and I confess I was not at all inclined to change our procedures in those directions.
Having said that, I conclude by thanking the hon. Gentleman for what he said, wishing him and his right hon. and learned Friend good fortune in their administration, and expressing the hope that they may have fewer really difficult, terrible cases to deal with than happened to me in my time.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Frank Soskice): May I cordially re-echo the hope expressed by the right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke). I feel it very strongly, and I greatly hope that his desire will be realised and that I shall not have any of the difficult cases which he had, and which I recognise he had.
I have held this office now for one month, and one thing that I have learnt in the course of that month is that it is an office which confronts the holder with a number of extremely difficult decisions. It is very difficult to please everybody. The first example that I had was when I found a very friendly and delightful policeman standing outside my home. Shortly afterwards I received a letter from a neighbour who said that he was proposing to ask his insurance company to reduce his burglary insurance rates. I then received a rather angry communication from another neighbour, an elderly lady, who said that she strongly objected because it looked as though a crime had been committed in the street and that lowered the tone of the neighbourhood.
My hon. Friend has spoken fully in this debate, and I entirely endorse what he said, and only, as the debate has travelled wide, venture to intervene for a short time to give some indication of my own view of some of the matters which have been raised.
I differ from nobody in the Committee in thinking that we ought to have permanent legislation. It is not satisfactory that matters which touch the freedoms of a large number of individuals should be left to delegated legislation consisting of an Order in Council made under an Act passed in 1919 which, in a rather odd, lopsided way amended a war-time


Act passed in 1914. I should have thought that, with the possible exception of the Leader of the Liberal Party, we would all take the view that it is time, as and when we can, to convert this hybrid type of enactment into something permanently on our Statute Book. But, starting from that, we do not get very far if all that we do is to take a Statutory Instrument and, by legislation, write it into a permanent Act of Parliament.
The purpose of those who feel that there should be permanent legislation is not merely to write into an Act, in terms, an existing Statutory Instrument. What they are asking is that the whole framework of legislation should be looked at in order to see whether it should be changed. In that connection, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) says that the right way to go about it is to appoint a Select Committee, as was done in the case of the Army Act, in order that the necessary legislation, which may be complicated, can be worked out by the processes of that Select Committee.
I join issue with him on that. I see the force of his suggestion, which he voices with great eloquence, but the feeling that I have about it is that if there is to be a change—and all the more if it is to be a fundamental change—in the legislation affecting aliens in this country, it surely is a direct responsibility of the Government. So far as I can speak from one month's experience, I feel that it is a matter which should be decided—or at any rate that the outlines of it should be laid down—by the Secretary of State for the Home Department with the assent of his colleagues, and that it should be a matter by which the credit of the Government should be judged, as in the case of other legislation.
If we shuffle it off, so to speak, to a Select Committee, we are abrogating a responsibility which should rest upon the Minister, and my view is that if legislation on these lines is enacted and takes a different form from the regulations which at present exist, it should flow from the consideration of the Minister concerned, with the approbation and consent of his colleagues, and it should be proposed to the Committee on that basis. I do not feel that great advantage will be gained by asking a Select Committee, in effect, to do that work for the

Minister concerned. Therefore, accepting as I do that as soon as we reasonably can we should translate this ephemeral legislation into something more permanent, I do not see any great advantage in asking a Select Committee to work out the changes that are necessary.
I pass from that to the question of appeals. As my hon. Friend has said, the Government are not averse to the idea of appeals. In the month during which I have been at the Home Office consideration has naturally been given to the matter, and I have received the extremely skilled and valuable advice which Ministers normally receive from their admirable advisers. There is the difficulty that the right hon. Member for Hampstead indicated—the Ellis Island difficulty. There is the difficulty that arises as to the number of appeals which may be taken to whatever tribunal is set up to judge them. Are we to have a panel of Queen's Counsel, or something of that sort, or a panel of non-legal people?
As my hon. Friend has said, last year there were 3, 515 refusals. In what percentage of those cases were there likely to have been appeals? Where are the appeal tribunals to sit? Are they to sit in the courts, in London, so that a would-be appellant would have to go to London to prepare his case and present it there? I hope that the Committee will agree that while appeals are desirable in principle there are many real practical difficulties to overcome before we can accept the view that they must be set up.
I do not accept that aliens are so completely unprotected as some hon. Members have said. An alien in this country is protected by our laws in the same way as is anybody else. He is in some circumstances liable to arrest. If he lands without permission he can be arrested. So long as the decision whether or not he should be allowed in remains an executive one for the Government, it is difficult to say that the Executive should not have some power of arrest, especially in the case of an alien who lands without permission. But once he is permitted to land he can become the owner of property and can reside in this country, even on a temporary basis, and people cannot assault or injure him without his being able to have recourse to the courts, as would be the case with anyone else.
It has been said that he is unprotected, but I put it to my hon. and learned Friend that he has exaggerated the degree of helplessness of the alien in this country.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Paget: With great respect to my right hon. and learned Friend, although an alien is here and may have acquired property, if my right hon. and learned Friend orders his arrest that alien can be arrested. He has no right to apply for a writ of habeas corpus. The order of my right hon. and learned Friend is sufficient, and no reason for his arrest need be given. The security reason is considered adequate.

Sir F. Soskice: If he is to be deported there are powers. I will not take up the time of the House in discussing their precise nature and import, but it is wrong to refer to the alien as completely unprotected by our laws. He is not. If it were practicable to do so, however, some right of appeal should be accorded to the alien. In that I think that I have the agreement of my predecessor in office, and I can say that I will certainly examine that question. We have not been able to get very far with it in the course of one month, but I do not rule it out. I see the justice of the proposal.
It may be complacent to say it, but I think it not improbable that a Minister may become departmentally-minded and for him to be quite conscious that he is becoming departmentally-minded and, as a result, be the more careful to examine the advice that he receives and take the view that it would be useful to have the advantage of a new and independent mind in coming to a conclusion on a certain issue. With regard to somebody's name getting in the black book and there being some inaccurate information about him, this is a risk which in many contexts it is extremely difficult to avoid, much as one hopes to avoid it. It is suggested that an alien should always be told the reason why his entry is refused, if it should be refused. As my hon. Friend told the Committee, the great majority of cases are cases where the travel documents are incomplete, where the alien has no credentials, or where something of that sort arises. He may have no work permit to take up paid employment. In such cases it is rare that the alien does not know

why he is being refused permission to enter.
In the case where an alien is regarded as undesirable, he may not be told that it is suspected, for example, that he is a drug pedlar, or that he has criminal propensities, or a bad record, but I hope that the Committee will agree that it is not easy to inform aliens, or would-be aliens, in all circumstances, that those are the reason why they are not being allowed to land, or what the grounds are for the refusal. That seems to be the only reasonable approach that one can take in dealing with that kind of difficult problem, which is bound to arise from time to time.

Mr. Harold Lever: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say why we cannot tell people who are refused entry because they have a criminal record that we are refusing them entry because of that criminal record? It must be known to them.

Sir F. Soskice: I said that sometimes an alien is not told. Very often he is, or he can understand pretty clearly what the reason is for his being refused entry. If a man tries to land here after having committed a number of offences in France and he is refused entry he can draw an inference, if he is not told in terms. But he would probably be given a pretty clear explanation why he is thought to be an undesirable immigrant.
I do not exclude from consideration many of the proposals that have been made, nor am I averse to the general approach indicated by hon. Members on both sides on this question. I recognise that human freedoms are involved, and that large numbers of persons have decisions made in respect of them which are of the utmost importance to them, and that it is incumbent upon those making those decisions to see that the greatest possible care is taken to avoid injustice to any individual.
In those circumstances, I hope that the Committee will agree that the Amendment should not be accepted, but that we should be allowed to carry on the aliens control, as it is at the moment, for one more year.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: It seems that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) is


going to be disappointed. He implied that everything said by his hon. and right hon. Friends when on this side of the Committee would automatically be accepted by the Government Front Bench now that his party is in office. Yet he has just heard a proposal, put very eloquently by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and backed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), which has been turned down by the Home Secretary, and somewhat to my disappointment. I do not accept the argument that these changes are the direct responsibility of the Government of the day and of the Home Secretary.
I think that there was a great deal of force in the argument put by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton that individual liberties and the way we treat aliens are matters of such universal interest to hon. Members that this should be treated as a House of Commons matter and not something which should be merely a prerogative of Government. I do not see that this would abrogate a responsibility which should rest with the Minister, as the Home Secretary put it, and I think it a rather odd description to refer to this legislation as ephemeral. To my mind there seems to be great danger that if we allow this to be revised in the Home Office we may be having precisely the same discussion next year or the year after that for time immemorial because the previous Home Secretary, I seem to remember, gave exactly the kind of assurances which we have had this afternoon in a similar debate a year ago.
I wish to refer to one matter which I hope will be considered by the Home Secretary when he reviews the legislation and which I would much prefer to have been considered by a Select Committee, or some type of review of the kind referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. It is a case which occurred last summer, that of Dr. Bert Bensen. I spoke on this matter in the House during an Adjournment debate raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart). I also went to the then Under-Secretary of State about it, and I am extremely dissatisfied with the way things turned out in respect of that case.
The present Joint Under-Secretary of State referred today to the rules and regulations which had been made in consequence of the Aliens Act of 1919. He did not refer to the European Convention on Establishment of which we are signatories. In that it says that if an alien has been resident in this country for more than two years he shall not be deported without the right of representation to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Dr. Bensen's solicitor went to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to make such representation and it was not until the solicitor had arrived there that he was told that Dr. Bensen was being deported on grounds of security. I think that is the first unsatisfactory feature of the case. He should have been told immediately.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I hope that I am not wrong, but I think I heard my hon. Friend say that in every case, except where security was involved, where a man had been formerly resident in this country for two years or more and it was proposed not to renew his permit to remain, he was told what was wrong and given an opportunity to answer and the right of legal representation. I think that none of these things was ever offered to Dr. Bensen, nor has it ever been said in Dr. Bensen's case, so far as I know, that any question of security was involved.

Mr. Lubbock: I am sorry if I missed that part of the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary of State. The situation is that Dr. Bensen did apply through his solicitor to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to show reason why he should not be deported. It was not until the solicitor arrived at the court that he was told it was because of security. I may say that the then Home Secretary was extremely disingenuous about this. On 4th June I put down a Question to the right hon. Gentleman in which I asked
if he will state his reasons for asking Mr. Bert Bensen, a citizen of the United States, to leave Great Britain.
His reply was:
I have asked Mr. Bensen to leave the country because I am satisfied that his continued presence here would not be in the public interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th June, 1964; Vol. 695, c. 188.]


If that had been the reason, and if that was all there was to it, Dr. Bensen would have been entitled to make representations before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. When I put this point specifically to the former Joint Under-Secretary of State she said that this phrase was always interpreted as meaning that imperative considerations of national security applied. I particularly underline the word "imperative". I put it to the Joint Under-Secretary that there would have been no point in putting in the word "imperative" unless there were certain security cases in which representations to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate might be very necessary. The answer to that was that the European Convention on Establishment gave Governments and Ministers complete right to decide what these considerations were.
I believe that Dr. Bensen got into bad favour because of his membership of certain peace organisations and because of his association with certain people who were involved in organisations which were not popular with the Government. I consider this a totally inadequate reason for deporting anyone. If I am correct in my supposition, it is a most reprehensible thing that deportation should be allowed to take place on the ground of security when that has nothing to do with it. These organisations are not considered to be a threat to security, and therefore individuals who belong to them, or associate with members of such organisations, should not themselves be treated as an imperative threat to security. It would be interesting to know how many of the 44 cases involving deportation this year were actually cases where security was involved. If he can give me an answer to that question I should like the Joint Under-Secretary to do so, because I think it important.
Are there a large number of cases in which deportation is being carried out for reasons which really have nothing to do with security but in which this phrase is used? That is what I want to establish and what I hope that a Select Committee or the Home Office, if new legislation is to be drafted there, will consider very carefully. I wrote to the present Home Secretary on 28th October

asking whether the deportation order against Dr. Bensen might be withdrawn. I should be grateful if that could be considered now. I gave the right hon. and learned Gentleman notice that I was going to raise this matter and I hope it will be possible to say that Dr. Bensen can continue to reside in this country because, so far, no reasons have been given for his expulsion. I have never had any explanation from the previous Government that security would be involved and no explanation has been given to Dr. Bensen himself about the real reason. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to withdraw that order.

Mr. Harold Lever: I shall not detain the Committee too long and I hope that I shall not convict myself of illiberalism by saying that during the 20 years that I have been dealing with the Home Office I have found nothing which would make me believe that anybody has been deported from this country because he had joined some organisation which is unpopular with the Government. I find that very difficult to believe. My own experience has been that in the execution of its onerous duties under this unsatisfactory legislation the Department has been zealous, fair-minded and meticulously fair. Other people may have had different experiences. I can only testify to my own. It in no way obscures the fact that the legislation, as it now stands, is utterly unsatisfactory.
I am concerned that the Home Secretary seems to think it is a good enough answer to the proposals of my hon. and learned Friend to say that there is a better way of dealing with the matter than that proposed by my hon. and learned Friend, without giving the Committee an explicit assurance that he intends to adopt that better course. We were all very impressed with the reputation of both the Ministers and the uneasiness felt by the Home Secretaries and their assistants for the last 20 years about the totally unsatisfactory denial of justice, at any rate in theory, which exists under the legislation. But until we get an explicit assurance that some action will be taken to remedy this state of affairs all that the Committee is being treated to is emotion without consequence. The reference to Ellis Island by the former Home Secretary typifies an attitude which justifies the facilities and the doing of


nothing to remedy the present state of affairs. Because it is found that the Ellis Island proposal has objections an even more objectionable state of affairs is continued, of people having no right to appeal. One, of course, finds it easy to raise a number of difficult questions, and if one asks those questions before setting up tribunals one simply does not set up tribunals. These questions are difficult, but one could find the answer if one were determined to do so.
6.30 p.m.
As for the suggestion of an Ellis Island isolation hospital type of accommodation, made by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke), we all know the right hon. Gentleman's delicacy in these matters. But rather than deny visitors or aliens the right of appeal against refusal to land we might set up the equivalent of an Ellis Island. It need not be in the nature of an isolation hospital, and it certainly need not resemble a prison cell. It could be more in the nature of a Customs bond where people who felt that they had been unfairly deprived of their rights should have the opportunity of consulting their lawyers, seeing their relatives and making adequate representations to the authorities.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who enjoys the deep affection and respect of both sides of the Committee, is rather touchy on this question of expecting authority to vouchsafe its reason. It is characteristic of authority that it equates its own wisdom and knowledge with what is desirable in the public interest and maintains taciturnity as long as it possibly can. When I asked why criminals were not admitted because they had a criminal record, my right hon. and learned Friend seemed to think that I had made a tactless and inappropriate intervention. It seems to me the most natural thing in the world and to correspond with natural justice that one might tell a man what one found wrong with him. He might then find that one had made a ghastly mistake.
Where there is a reasonable case and one puts it to the Home Office it is dealt with, as I have said, in an immaculate and open-minded manner by those who have the responsibility, but what about the thousands of cases of those who are

turned away from all sorts of places in the world without their having gone to their Member of Parliament to put their case for them?
Many years ago, about 1948, I took up the case of a Greek shipowner who had a considerable business to do in this country in insuring and arranging freights for his ships, much to the advantage of this country. He was refused permission to remain in this country and when I pressed for the reason I was told by a right hon. Friend who is not in the present Government that the man spent more time in this country than could be justified by the business which he came here to transact. Apparently he ran a string of horses and was in the habit of visiting the stables. This was not approved by somebody who had given him a visa. That kind of nonsense can be fairly readily put right, but in humbler cases without access to Members of Parliament much injustice may result. It is no justification of bad law and bad power exercised by the Executive to say that the power is rarely exercised. An alien has the protection of our law in almost every respect, but is there any reason why he should not have the protection of our law, our principles and beliefs in natural justice, in all respects?
This preoccupation of ours with security matters is much overworked. In 1944 it was not found necessary to protect the security of the nation by depriving a British subject of legal rights founded in natural justice and on the long traditions of our land. There is no more danger to the State in this day and age from a foreigner coming here than there is from an English subject, and the long history of sedition and treason and the like, especially in recent times, seems to suggest that it is in the resident and the subject here that such danger might be found to exist.
We may have come down in the world as a nation in terms of power, but England's name is still a magic name in many parts in respect of its institutions and its pattern of justice. Instead of giving a good example in this matter of aliens, we are setting a bad example with bad law, and putting off time and again an obvious remedy. I beg my right hon. and learned Friend to give more firm and satisfactory assurances than we have had so far.

Mr. Paget: I also find this a very unsatisfactory answer. We are told, as we have been told for half a century, that there ought to be permanent legislation. We are then told by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, as again we have been told for half a century, that legislation would be very difficult. One suspects that the same result will come about and that we shall continue without legislation.
My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, in a delightful speech, said that the position with regard to the Army Act was different because the position which we are now discussing raises issues of public policy. What on earth did the Army Act raise? There was a great issue of public policy there. It was a highly important one of what rights a citizen army should have against the Executive. The question which we have to consider here is what rights aliens should have against the Executive. It is very much the same sort of public question, and very much the sort of public question with which the Committee should particularly interest itself—the rights and the protection of the individual vis-à-vis the Executive.
My right hon. and learned Friend said that permanent legislation ought to be the responsibility of the Government. It must be, of course; but since Government for half a century have failed, why not let a Select Committee of the House of Commons make some suggestions? The Government can either accept or reject those suggestions but they would have something to look at and work on. What is the objection to this? It succeeded in the case of the Army Act. If we Members of Parliament as a Select Committee are prepared to do this work for the Government, why should not we do it? After all, this for both parties over the years has been an example of Government failure.
I do not know about withdrawing the Amendment. I feel on occasions that the House of Commons has lost its reputation and has become too much the servant of Government. If there is to be an association between two institutions, that association does not work if one institution is always to have its way. Sometimes Government ought to give way to Parliament and to the House of Commons. If the House of Commons

insists on occasions, that does not mean that the Government are going to resign. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not a Dr. Barbara Moore and is not going to threaten suicide if he does not have his way.
If the Committee were to insist on the Amendment, it would not mean that the Government would resign, and it would not mean that we would cease to have any law to control aliens. It would merely mean that Parliament had said to the Government, "We do not find this satisfactory and you have to think it out and come to us with better ideas on the Report stage." I am not at all sure that that is not what we should say to the Government. I ask them to think again or we may very well say it.

Sir E. Boyle: I hope that the Home Secretary will not completely turn down without further consideration the suggestion made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). As a member of the former Government, I take my full share of responsibility for the fact that we have no permanent legislation on this subject. None of us in the former Government speaks with a clean sheet here. But the fact remains that we are operating, basically, under legislation dating from 1919. I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman made a good point when he referred to the Declaration of Human Rights and the fact that much has happened internationally since then which has a bearing on this matter.
I am not fully convinced that a drastic revision of the law is called for. I am, however, quite sure that a clarification of the law is called for and new statute law on this subject is certainly called for. No Government have done what is necessary in this respect in the post-war period. In the circumstances, there seems to be a prima facie case for saying that a Select Committee of the House of Commons might be given a chance to look into the matter.
This history of Select Committees of the House of Commons is a chequered one. Someone, very properly, referred earlier to the rather unhappy precedent of the Select Committee on the Marconi case. No one will suggest that a Select Committee on legislation affecting, say, the steel industry would be particularly


useful at this time. Yet one remembers that the procedure did work in 1952 over the Army Act. I remember those days very well. It seems to me quite arguable that this is a case in which a Select Committee, taking expert evidence and working with Parliamentary draftsmen, might have something to contribute.
As I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal, he is not suggesting that the Home Secretary should be deprived of the necessary executive decision or that the Government should be denied final decision about legislation which they recommend to Parliament. No one feels more strongly than I do that it must be the Government who ultimately decide what legislation they recommend Parliament to pass. There is, therefore, no intention that the Select Committee would usurp the Government's functions. All I am saying is that this is a particular case in which the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion at least deserves sympathetic consideration. It is not a political issue. It is very much an issue between representatives of constituents, on the one hand, and the Executive, on the other, and the proposal was put forward in a reasonable mood this afternoon.
I have a good deal of sympathy with the doubts and hesitations which have been expressed on the subject of some sort of appeal procedure for aliens. I entirely see the important questions which arise here, particularly on the Ellis Island point. In his delightful speech, the Joint Under-Secretary of State told us that there had been one refusal for 700 people admitted. Those figures suggest that, perhaps, the administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke) was not in all respects quite the sink of illiberalism which is sometimes suggested, and I am sure that we on this side are glad that those figures were given.
I shall say no more about it. Perhaps we can bring this debate to a close shortly. I ask the Home Secretary not finally to turn down the proposal made by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton.

Sir F. Soskice: Most certainly I do not turn down the suggestion. I was indicating difficulties which seemed to me to be in the way of it and objections which occurred to my mind. Having received a

very courteous letter from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) indicating that he would make the suggestion, I was giving my prima facie reactions. I can see the merit of his proposal, and I definitely undertake that I shall give it the most careful thought. If I ultimately decide that it is not a course which I can adopt, I assure him that that will be only after a most careful reading of his speech and considering the reasons which have been advanced.

Mr. Paget: In the light of my right hon. and learned Friend's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. A. R. Wise: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 17 and 18.
I must first make clear that my suggestion not to continue the Commonwealth Immigrants Act is purely formal. There was no other way of bringing the case forward. I support the Act. I voted for it on Second Reading. I wish to extend its provisions. In my view, it should be strengthened in the light of knowledge which we now have since the Act was passed. I say this very firmly not only in the interests of the old inhabitants of this country but also in the interests of all our new arrivals, for it is their livelihood which will the first to be threatened if any serious danger of unemployment were to arise.
This is no idle fear. Unemployment could arise under any Government. If the present Government do half the things they said that they would do in the carefree days of Opposition, it will certainly arise and arise quickly, and the danger will then be upon us.
I shall deal with one or two concrete suggestions in a moment. First I wish to resolve one point which has been puzzling me. Do I congratulate hon. and right hon. Members opposite on at last seeing sense on immigration, or do I sympathise with them on all having developed leprosy? One has only to think of what they said when we were passing the Act. It was opposed bitterly and viciously the whole way through. There is a certain macabre humour about the fact that it is now the Labour Party


which is seeking to extend its operation for another year.
It is probably just as well that the Foreign Secretary's electors was as discriminating as they were in not returning him at the last election. I recall very readily what he said about the Act at the time when it was going through. He denounced it in no uncertain terms, saying that it contained
bare-faced, open race discrimination… written not only into its spirit… but into its very letter. The more I have studied the Bill, the more I have come to the conclusion that it is ill-conceived, that it will not work … and that it will do irreparable damage to the Commonwealth."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 16th Nov., 1961; Vol. 649, c. 706.]
Yet the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman is a distinguished member are proposing to extend the Act for another year, with, I may say, the warm support of everyone who has considered the problem of immigration at all seriously.
Perhaps it is just as well that the right hon. Gentleman is not with us because I am quite certain that, as an honest man, he would be driven to oppose this extension of the Act, and we should find him in open conflict with the Prime Minister, a most unedifying spectacle on the Front Bench. He could hardly speak and vote in favour of doing irreparable harm to the Commonwealth.
I had the honour of representing Smethwick for 14 years. I hope that I shall be pardoned before adding my protest to those which have been voiced against the quite unjustified smear made by the Prime Minister not only on my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Peter Griffiths) but on all those who voted for him. What had these terrible sinners done? They rejected a Member whose majority had been, over four elections, progressively reduced from 12, 000 to losing the seat. Who can blame them if they had come to the conclusion that they wanted a Member with more local knowledge and a great deal more local interest than their previous Member had shown? That hardly justifies—

Mr. B. T. Parkin: Why did they chuck the hon. Gentleman out?

Mr. Wise: It is customary to rise when making an interjection.

Mr. Parkin: Will the hon. Gentleman also analyse the causes of his own defeat?

Mr. Wise: In fact, they did not; but we can go into that another time.
As I was saying, what the Smethwick electors did hardly justified an accusation of moral leprosy from the Prime Minister, particularly in face of the Labour Party's past record in that constituency of dealing with a problem which the constituents obviously felt was of great local moment. They wanted a Member who had studied their problem and had obviously shown some sense of understanding it. Certainly they were not prepared to give their support to those who indulged in this frothy talk about "irreparable harm to the Commonwealth" in 1961 and then, as the General Election drew nearer and they found it electorally unsuitable, became much more tolerant in their view of the Act.
None the less, so furious was the right hon. Gentleman at the crossing of his will that he decided to outrage Parliamentary procedure and tradition by delivering an attack on a Member who had not yet made his maiden speech, and on one to whom he had given no previous notice of the attack, which is something which, to my knowledge, has never been done before.
What an attack it was! It may well be that the right hon. Gentleman has arrogated to himself the right to judge moral and political leprosy, or he may be relying on his two notorious supporters, the Bishop of Southwark and Canon Collins, two churchmen much more noted for their politicsthan for their Christianity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] For myself, I am prepared to rely on a remark by Talleyrand when he had been abused by the great Napoleon in very much the same way as my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick was abused in this House. On leaving the room, Talleyrand said:
What a pity so great a man should be such a vulgarian!
When one considers the campaign after campaign of innuendo, smear and everything else—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting very far from the Amendment which he has on the Order Paper.

Mr. Wise: I apologise, Sir Samuel. However, I do not apologise for feeling some heat on this question, because my Black Country men are dear to my heart—[Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite will for a moment restrain their efforts at semaphoring their message across the Committee, they will see as I go on that my statement is true, whichever way one takes it.
Was it a belief in racial equality or merely fury at his will being crossed that led to the right hon. Gentleman's outburst? I do not know. I have suspected dictatorial symptoms on the other side of the Committee before now. I will not go into the behaviour of one or two Ministers at Question Time, because that would he out of order, except to say that they have confirmed my ideas that they are not all that attached to the normal processes of democracy.
The Labour Party's opinions about the whole question of immigration have been muddled throughout from the time they first opposed the Bill because they thought it electorally desirable to do so. Indeed, the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Jennie Lee), who now holds office in the Government, gave us a very entertaining speech on immigration. She pointed out how desirable it was to have more of it because nearly all immigrants voted Labour when they got here. Hon. Members opposite have now discovered that that it is not the case, and they are, therefore, prepared to take a more rational outlook on the problem of importation of other persons.
One of the most futile suggestions put forward by progressive thinkers hitherto is that this problem could be solved by agreement with the Commonwealth. This was put forward when the original Bill was being discussed. It was said that nothing could be easier and that all that one had to do was to ask them to restrict their emigration. Hon. Members forgot that it is not so easy to do as all that. Nor is there all that great willingness to do it. Let us be quite clear on this. Such agreement was sought and, of course, it was not found. In any case, this country had no right to abdicate to others the responsibilities for its own government.
Recently we were told, I believe with a flourish of trumpets, by some progressive circles that the Prime Minister of Trinidad had put forward a wonderful

scheme to enable us to control immigration with the full agreement of the Comnmonwealth. I should think that even hon. Members opposite would realise that Trinidad is not India and that there are not 50 million unemployed in Trinidad as in India, and that the possibility of an unrestricted flow is very much less from the Caribbean than it is from far more overcrowded and, per head, far poorer countries.
Whether we like it or not, there is an immigration problem and we must face it. There are various things that we have to do. We cannot expect Trinidad to do them for us. First of all, we must realise that, in spite of this Act, more people are arriving annually in this country than we can comfortably assimilate. The figure is not as large as many feared, but it is still too large. Also, unfortunately, we do not know accurately how serious the problem is. We know that there is overcrowding in a number of our cities, but we do not know to what extent there is overcrowding because local authorities have been very neglectful in the past about trying to find out where there is overcrowding. This is understandable because if they track any down and enforce the overcrowding Act, they have then to rehouse the people they turn out of the overcrowded house, and they immediately get into endless trouble with the persons on their ordinary housing list. This is one of the great problems with any local authority. However, we could find out. We could make local authorities find out, without imposing on them the obligation to enforce the overcrowding Act, where the overcrowding is and how bad it is and whether there is any possible solution.
My experience in the southern part of the Midlands is that the overcrowding—and, indeed, the whole immigrant population—is not as serious a problem there as it is in many other places. We have, of course, an immigrant population in my constituency, but it is not nearly as big as most of my constituents think. However, I should like to know—and I should like the Home Office to make certain that the local authorities find out for me and others—exactly what the problem is, how many immigrants there are and whereabouts in the borough they are situated.
It is all very well to say that we have an electoral register, even if it were complete, which any hon. Member knows


is not so. A very large number of people do not appear on it for understandable reasons, perhaps because their landlord would be distressed if it were discovered that he had far too many people in his house. Apart from that, this information is not traceable from the register. Many immigrants have names which are precisely similar to ours. One can find out where Indians and Pakistanis live, but one cannot find out where Jamaicans live. John Smith may have come from Kingston upon Hull just as well as from Kingston, Jamaica. This research requires to be done, and thoroughly done, so that we can understand what the problem is before we proceed to amend the Act, which I am convinced is very highly necessary. One can also understand the education problem as well.
7.0 p.m.
We already have certain checks before people are allowed into the country. They have to produce vouchers to show that they have jobs waiting for them. I think that it is possible to tighten up the procedure to make certain that these vouchers are genuine and that there is no evasion in their production and distribution. But, more than that, it seems quite reasonable to ask that there shall be accommodation available before an immigrant is allowed in. If that were the case, we would not have this overcrowding.
This again is, to my mind, very much in the interests of the immigrants as well as ourselves. As it is, we refuse a man entry if he has a criminal record. What is more likely to encourage him to start a criminal record if he has not one already than to shove him into overcrowded accommodation at excessively high rents? It is almost forcing him into crime.
We reject, quite rightly, people on health grounds. What is more likely to produce ill health than to shove a family or a single immigrant into overcrowded accommodation, again at too high a rent and where both malnutrition and all the disadvantages of a very hard climate to one who has come from a sunny country will produce ill health? It is no good having this check at the ports, however good it may be, and then allowing conditions over here which will

cancel out the effect of our original precautions.
The next problem is that of education. This is extremely difficult, but there is no doubt that a genuine education problem exists in a large number of towns. Where there is a very large proportion—in some cases even a majority—of children who cannot speak English in a primary school, it must follow quite obviously that the education of the whole school will suffer and be retarded. What the solution is, it is not for me to say tonight. It is for the Department of Education to work out. But we should take some precaution before allowing in immigrant families and thereby make certain that the children can be educated without disrupting the education service.
I admit that this is no easy task but there is no doubt that the education problem is the one which has given rise to more complaint than any of the others which have been brought forward against the inflow of immigrants—more so than overcrowded housing and their alleged way of life. Our schools are very important in the minds of those who have lived in this country for a long time and they are terrified at the possible reduction of standards which may occur from the sort of conditions which I have just described.
That brings me to the fact that it is not too late to solve the problem. We shall not solve it, however, just by continuing the operation of the Act by a year. It is a temporary Measure and I trust that it will be replaced with a more comprehensive and thoroughgoing Act.
This immigration started as part of a demand for cheap labour. There is no getting away from that. There is nothing immoral in looking for cheap labour. It is legal enough, and if it is legal it is natural that industry—including nationalised industry—and the local authorities, which are responsible for transport and other services, should look for cheap labour that they cannot get in this country.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to suggest that coloured immigrants now working in London Transport are being "sweated" by being paid under the rates that the unions have established?

Mr. Wise: No. I am confining myself to the English language. If the hon. Gentleman cannot understand it, that is not my fault. It is quite clear that the wages which are available in London Transport are not sufficient to attract enough of the older inhabitants of this country. London Transport has, therefore, had to get immigrants who will accept those wages. I really cannot be much more specific than that, although I am doing my best.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Does the hon. Gentleman include nurses in the cheap labour to which he refers?

Mr. Wise: Yes, certainly. By "cheap labour" I do not necessarily mean underpaid labour but labour at a price—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I find it hard to explain this to what I must confess I consider to be a very stupid collection of people opposite. I mean labour which is employed at a price at which the inhabitants of this country will not work. Is that now clear and simple enough?

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that there is nothing wrong in employing cheap labour. Those were the words he used. Does he, therefore, condone this in the case of coloured nurses, coloured doctors and coloured transport workers? We do not accept that theory on this side of the Committee.

Mr. Wise: In his anxiety to make some form of interruption, the hon. Member has got a long way from the Bill. I am not condoning or approving anything. But there is nothing immoral in looking for labour at the lowest price one can get it for. I have no doubt that, when the hon. Member is thinking of paying his valet—as, no doubt, he will soon have one with our new affluence—he will not pay the man more than he has to. That is all that I have been saying.
I hope I have made it clear that my advocacy of continuing and tightening up the Act is as much in the interests of the immigrants as it is of the original inhabitants. Many immigrants will ultimately return to their home countries. Nearly all the Irish do and I believe that a very large number of Jamaicans do.

But others will settle here and be assimilated. There is nothing new in this; nor it is impossible. From the year 1880, an enormous number of Central European immigrants have come to this country. They have been assimilated over quite a long period. When they came here they had totally alien views on life and the majority of them could not speak a word of our language.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: How did they do in the schools?

Mr. Wise: They did not have them in those days.

Mr. Orbach: rose—

Mr. Wise: I cannot give way again.
By degrees the assimilation of our earlier immigrants has been very nearly totally completed. Now it is very difficult indeed to trace who is an original immigrant from Central Europe and who is not. The same thing will undoubtedly happen again in the end, provided that we are allowed adequate time for this assimilation to take place and do not overcrowd our economy with more people than it can conveniently absorb at any one time. I have no doubt that, with a reasonable extension of this Act, we can do that.
Having said that I want these provisions to be tightened, I must make one proviso and ask for an exception to be made. This is a matter purely of sympathy rather than of practical politics. There are many Asiatics who for three generations and sometimes more have been resident in our ex-African colonies. They have no homeland except that in which they are resident at the moment. They cannot even speak the language of their country of origin. I have a number of them in my constituency with whom I converse in Swahili, which is their, native tongue, not Hindi or Urdu.
These people went to those colonies under the encouragement and protection of British administration. That is why they went there and that is how they managed to stay there. For good or ill, that protection has now been withdrawn and these people are faced with persecution and very hard ill treatment. Anybody who has looked at the pronouncements of some of the new Governments in dealing with their Asiatic subjects will know that that is only too terribly true.
These people should be admitted to this country because, whether we like it or not, it is our fault that they are in this state and we ought to do our best to find homes for them when they ask us. This is where Government interference and Government direction would be justified. They could be found homes where they would not be overcrowding the existing working population. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] These people are mostly craftsmen and there is always room for craftsmen in many different parts of the country. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Rugby?"] I am not trying to be funny about this. Nor do I think that hon. Members opposite are showing a decent appreciation of the plight of these people when they try to make out that I am. Hon. Members opposite should be ashamed of themselves for neglecting the sufferings of their fellow creatures. With that final plea, I ask the Committee to support my Amendment.

7.15 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Frank Soskice): We are obviously faced with a very important social and human problem. The Committee will not be surprised if I do not emulate the tone of the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise). He fairly soon got down to solid argument, and I will try to respond to him in the tone in which he thereafter conducted his speech.
It will be of most assistance to the Committee if I seek to divide my answer to the hon. Gentleman's speech into separate compartments. As I have said, we are faced with a problem and we have to deal with it. It is no good pretending that it is not there, and we cannot simply take a merely negative attitude towards it. As a great nation, we have to take a positive attitude. When we on this side of the Committee say that we believe that our positive approach should be to take steps to try to prevent the coloured immigrants from being regarded as, or feeling themselves to be, second-class and not first-class citizens, I think that we will have the approbation of the whole Committee.
In my approach to what I would venture to describe as the positive aspect of our dealing with this matter, I will first endeavour to make some evaluation

of the extent of the problem itself. One cannot form a view as to what is the right way to tackle it unless one knows its dimensions. I hope, therefore, that the Committee at the outset will bear with me if I retail what I hope will be not an excessive number of figures in order to enable hon. Members to evaluate for themselves the scope of the problem with which we have to deal.
Part I of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act came into operation on 1st July, 1962. The Committee will no doubt have studied its provisions, but perhaps it would not be unhelpful just to remind hon. Members of the general scope of the Act in order to see how its Sections have acted on particular streams of immigrants.
Hon. Members will remember that those who have vouchers issued by the Ministry of Labour are entitled to entry. There are other categories who are also entitled to entry under Section 2 of the Act, namely, the wife and the children under 16 of an immigrant who is given leave to enter, or who is already here; students who wish to seek entry to this country for the purpose of pursuing their studies for a substantial part of the time that they are here; and, of less importance in terms of numbers, persons able to maintain themselves.
May I again remind the Committee how the system of Ministry of Labour vouchers works? They are divided into three separate categories. Category A relates to would-be entrants who have a job to go to in this country and for whom employers have actually asked. Category B is a very important category, because it comprises immigrants who have special skill. In practice it relates very largely to doctors from Commonwealth countries, nurses, teachers and other people possessing professional ualifications—in general people who have some training which would enable them to be of great value to our economy. The remaining category, category C, broadly comprehends other would-be entrants, namely, workers who do not fall within categories A or B, and it includes a large body of unskilled workers.
What happens is that vouchers of the A and B categories are given precedence and the allocation made by the Ministry of Labour of vouchers for a long time has been taken up almost entirely by A


and B vouchers. In other words, the entrants have been either workers who have come here to jobs for which they were actually required and for which they had been asked, or persons with particular training or special qualifications, such as nurses and doctors. It is not necessary for me to remind the Committee how essential their help has been to the running of the National Health Service. I think that I would have the agreement of everybody, particularly my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, if I said that it would be disastrous if their help were withdrawn from the National Health Service. Nor is it only doctors and nurses who come into category B, but teachers and other persons possessing specialist qualifications.
What happened with category C was that by the middle of this year a very big backlog of applications had been built up, largely from India and Pakistan. The backlog had reached the figure of practically 300, 000 applicants and, because of this very great backlog, in June, 1964. the last Government decided that they would accept no further non-priority category C applications from India and Pakistan, from where the great majority of the category C applications came.
So, if one tries to get a view of the scale and format of the immigrant problem, the position is that those workers who are now coming in are either those actually wanted for specific jobs and whose presence is necessary and helpful to the economy, or persons who have specialist qualifications which result in their being of very great value to the community. The National Health Service, for example is helped by them. Equally, as everybody knows, immigrants have played a valuable part in our transport services. So we are dealing with people who come here and contribute a great deal. The A and B category workers are of very great value to our economy.
The next figure with which I would venture to trouble the Committee is this. Hon. Members may say, "How many immigrants from the new Commonwealth countries"—I exclude Australia, New Zealand and Canada—"are physically here at the moment?" That is obviously a crucial figure to know in order to ascertain

the dimensions of the problem. The best estimate that my Department can give of that figure is that there are now here 800, 000 immigrants from the new Commonwealth countries. In order to complete the understanding of the situation, one must ask how many of that 800, 000 have arrived since the control began to work, in other words, since 1st July, 1962. The best estimate I can give of that figure is that since 1st July, 1962, something in the region of 120, 000 have arrived, so if we deduct from the 800, 000 that 120, 000 and make allowance for the normal natural increase of the immigrants who live here, we get an idea of what the effect of the control has been and how it is running at the present moment.

Sir E. Boyle: Is that from July, 1962, until June of this year or September of this year?

Sir F. Soskice: It is an approximate estimate, but it is until the end of September, 1964.

Mr. David Renton: For the sake of accuracy in the use of words, I would point out that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that 120, 000 was the number who had arrived from the new Commonwealth countries since 1st July, 1962. I think that if he studies his own figures he will find that many more than that have arrived and that the figure of 120, 000 represents the net increase, that is to say, arrivals in excess of departures.

Sir F. Soskice: I accept that correction. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly right. That is the net amount, the number who still remain here after deducting from the total number of arrivals those who have left. Those 120, 000 have remained here and are included in the figure of 800, 000 which I gave. I think I have given a general idea of the problem.

Mr. Charles Curran: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman similarly give figures for Irish immigrants?

Sir F. Soskice: I certainly can give similar figures, but I would sooner pursue the train of my argument and give those figures later; otherwise it disrupts the thread of my argument.
In order to investigate the problem further, I propose to give some breakdown of the voucher holders of A, B and C categories who are included in that 120, 000. I shall deal in round thousands in order not to complicate matters. Of the voucher holders of the three categories from 1st July, 1962, until the end of September, 1964, some 46, 000 have arrived. Not all the vouchers issued are taken up, but we have found in recent months that the percentage of those that are issued that are in fact taken up and represent arrivals in this country are some 75 per cent. I hope this is not becoming too complicated. Of the arrivals since control some 46, 000 are A, B and C voucher holders. As I have reminded the Committee, that does not latterly include any C voucher holders; the only voucher holders now coming in are A and B.
The second major category of immigrants which goes to account for the arrivals up to the present date comes under the heading of dependants, and I would remind the Committee that under Section 2 children under the age of 16 and wives are entitled to come here. In point of fact, immigration control has not been quite as strict as that, and when an immigrant who is here and is working or who seeks entry and is going to be granted permission to enter wishes to bring with him a child who is over 16 or a near relative who is dependent upon him, the Immigration Control have granted the right to such persons to enter on, broadly speaking, humanitarian grounds which I feel the whole Committee would approve. Therefore, if we ask, under that second heading, how many arrivals there have been since 1st July, 1962, when the control began, to the end of September this year, the figure is 61, 000 dependants.
I want now to draw a contrast. When one sets the figures of net balance of immigration against those of immigrants who are, as it were, settled under a right which they possess to come to this country, it seems to emerge that there is a certain balance which is difficult to account for except upon the hypothesis that there is some degree—I cannot say how much because it is very difficult to say—of evasion of control.
If one makes the addition of those arrivals who consist of voucher holders and those arrivals who consist of de-

pendants, and adds the two figures of 61, 000 and 46, 000 together, one gets a figure of 107, 000, which represents those who since control began up to the end of September, 1964, arrived and who, without any question, are entitled to settle here and in fact have become resident either upon a permanent basis, or upon a more or less permanent basis—because some ultimately will go back to their countries of origin. If one looks to see during the same period how many immigrants have landed on our shores and take from that figure the number who have left our shores during the same period, we find the figure is considerably greater than the figure of 107, 000. That figure is 138, 000.
The question immediately arises: what is it that accounts for the difference between 107, 000 and 138, 000, namely, some 31, 000? When I mentioned the figure of possible evasion, it was that which I had in mind. If one asked, "What is it that accounts for that discrepancy between the two figures?" it would seem to be that it must be accounted for by one of two hypotheses, or both. In the first place, students are entitled to come in and I am certain that the Committee will agree that the more students who come and receive training or education in this country the better for everybody, not only for this country but for the world as a whole. We have very much to offer to overseas students who come here, and the Committee will be glad to think that students have been coming here at the rate of about 18, 000 per annum. That is obviously a very large number.
In addition, there are visitors who during the operation of the control have been allowed here on a purely discretionary basis. They have no right to come. They do not fall into any of the categories that have an unchallengeable right to enter this country, such as voucher holders, or students, or residents here. But visitors who seek to come here from Commonwealth countries can be allowed in at discretion.
Since the control began, nearly half a million visitors have come into this country, but it is difficult for me to inform the Committee what is the number who went out because Commonwealth citizens leaving the United


Kingdom are not, under the existing system of control, classified.
When Commonwealth citizens leave one does not know whether they are workers, visitors or students, because no record is kept to classify them. It is difficult to think otherwise than that there must be a certain number of visitors who stay on—although they are admitted only as visitors—and thereby evade the control, and, possibly, a far lesser number of students. That is obviously a problem of some seriousness.
Another way of looking at those figures—which brings them, as it were, more up to date and brings out a point which I should put before the Committee as one of some importance—is to make the same analysis of the figures for the first nine months of 1963 and contrast it with the figures for the first nine months of 1964. If for the first nine months of 1963 one takes the net balance of arrivals less departures, one finds that the figure is 56, 000. If one then contrasts with that those who are allowed to settle here, being holders of vouchers or dependants, one finds that for the first nine months of 1963 that figure is 40, 000. The first question one asks oneself is, "What is the explanation of the excess of 16, 000 in the figure of 56, 000 over the figure of 40, 000?
7.30 p.m.
At first sight that looks a substantial excess, and one then asks whether there is a considerable measure of evasion concealed in that figure of excess; but I should inform the Committee that one must take into account, as a counterbalancing factor, the last three months of 1963. In that period, from September to the end of December, a large number, particularly of immigrants from the older Commonwealth countries, left. So, if one takes out those who left in the last three months, the excess—that is, the excess of the total number of arrivals over those admitted to settle—is reduced to about 6, 000.
In the comparable period of 1964 those who were admitted as settlers, workers, dependants and so on again totalled 40, 000, a slight diminution, but the net arrivals in the first nine months of 1964 were right up to 69, 000, an excess of 29, 000. One asks again, does that conceal an unacceptable scale of

evasion? It would be made up, as I have said, largely of visitors and, to a much smaller extent, of students.
Many students may, when they come here and finish their studies, think that they would like to stay on and, under the existing system, when an immigrant has passed the control barrier he disappears into the community and no further record is kept of him. Whether the 29, 000 will diminish in the last three months of 1964, as the 15, 000 diminished in the last three months of 1963, it is impossible for me to say; but it would seem, from the figures at present available, that there must be some measure of evasion to which one cannot afford to turn a blind eye.

Mr. Wise: Having been slightly dazed by that bevy of figures, and not being in possesion of a slide rule, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say how, when he is talking about evasion, we are able to know, other than by a rough calculation that there has, in fact, been evasion, and to what extent it has taken place?

Sir F. Soskice: As I said, under the existing system of control—and I wish to emphasise "existing system"—a good deal of what I am saying must be a matter of conjecture. Further, when one finds the sort of surplus I have described—between those who settled as workers and dependants and the net arrivals—it would appear that there was a measure of evasion.

Mr. Wise: How does one know when they have settled as workers or dependants?

Sir F. Soskice: I have explained that there is bound to be an element of conjecture in this because the precise whereabouts of those who settle is not recorded in any system of control. But if a person comes here and is wanted to work in, say a factory, or if a doctor arrives here to join the staff of a hospital, then the inference I am drawing is that such a person has permanently settled here or, at least, has settled on a long-term basis. At any rate, such a person has in no sense evaded the control. That is as far as I can answer the question.

Sir E. Boyle: We are extremely grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for deploying the figures so fully


on what we all recognise to be an extremely difficult and important topic. I am certain that the whole Committee will gladly give him all the extra time he may require so that he may make it clear when he is talking about the old Commonwealth and when he is referring to the new Commonwealth. It is important that we should be clear about this.

Sir F. Soskice: I have the figure with me and I had intended to spare the Committee these details. I did not want to give a further breakdown. I was attempting to abbreviate my speech and so make it less wearisome to hon. Members.
I think that it is, broadly speaking, accurate to say—and I will give two examples to support this—that the old Commonwealth countries represent less than one-tenth. I spoke of 40, 000 admitted to settle in the first nine months of 1963 and 40, 000 in the first nine months of 1964. If one breaks down that figure of 40, 000 between the old and the new Commonwealths one sees that the figure for the old Commonwealth in 1963 was 3, 000 and the new Commonwealth 37, 000; and in 1964 the figure for the old Commonwealth was 2, 000 and the new Commonwealth 38, 000. That is the best answer I can give without going into an interminable recitation of figures.

Mr. John Harvey: We very much appreciate the helpful way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is giving the Committee this information, but I wonder whether he has seen the figures quoted by the Economist some time ago. Although they almost tallied with those he has given, they included a particularly odd aspect. They indicated that in the second year of control 90 per cent. of all immigrants from the Caribbean countries were non-workers—were, in other words, presumably dependent on people already here. Is the figure really as high as 90 per cent.?

Sir F. Soskice: I would be surprised if it were as high as 90 per cent, but it nevertheless is the case that the figure of dependants is higher than the figure of actual breadwinners, if I may call them such. Nevertheless, my remarks on this must be a matter of conjecture. I have not taken advice on this from my

officials. I may be wrong and I speak subject to verification.
If that is the general nature of the problem, one must then ask oneself what is needed in the way of changes. Do these figures want adjustment or are they well within the economic absorbtive capacity of the country? To answer that we must first look at the credit side of the balance sheet. To regard these immigrants as people who do not contribute a service to this country is very wide of the facts. They are extremely valuable citizens, especially when we bear in mind the category B workers. I hope that I am not unnecessarily repeating myself when I say that this is borne out when one goes to the hospitals and sees how many coloured nurses are working in them and inquires of the hospital staff how they do their work. They are a very valuable addition to the complement of our citizens and render great service. The same is equally true of doctors and other skilled people. So that on the figures alone, which prima facie seem large, one would form a misleading impression unless one were to bear that fact very prominently in mind.
May I test what I have just said by giving the unemployment rate among the immigrant population in this country. It is now only 2·5 percent. of total adult unemployment, which is, comparatively speaking, a low figure. In other words, a large number of immigrants are exercising their skills to the advantage of the other citizens of this country.
I mentioned evasion. Since the control has been operating for only just under 2½ years, it is perhaps too early to form accurate computations of the scale of the evasion. One sometimes uses the phrase "an acceptable scale," and that means minimal evasion. But obviously if the evasion reaches a scale above that no responsible Government can turn a blind eye. They must take steps to deal with it. But those steps are not at all easy to frame.
If one seeks to go further than the existing scheme of control whereby, as I have said, once the immigrant is past the barrier he disppears into the population, one has to contemplate, I do not say an over-severe form of control, but the type of severe control which we apply to aliens. This carries with it the necessity for the person to make a report to


the police and notify any change of address. Without going further into detail, the Committee will readily realise that there are serious difficulties in the way of imposing that type of control in the case of students and people from the older Commonwealth countries as well as those from the newer Commonwealth countries. I do not say that it is in practice impossible, but it would be very much resented, as the Committee may well conjecture. Therefore, one greatly hesitates about that. I am examining the problem very closely, but, unless a control of that sort must be imposed and unless the figures are imperative and require it, I hope that the Committee will understand hesitancy on my part about taking steps to impose it.
I turn to the question of the dependants. I suppose that by being more severe on dependants, who are admitted on a discretionary basis, we could reduce the number of dependants coming here. Human considerations require that we should not do this. Once the breadwinner is here, his family should be kept together. The Act gives the right to children under 16 to come here, but I hope that the Committee will agree that the previous Government were perfectly right in allowing a fairly wide measure of immigration to people who did not strictly come within the definition in Section 2 because they were too old, or because they were relatives who were dependants or because they were mothers and fathers. I therefore greatly hope that there would be no question of the Committee and the country thinking it necessary to limit the number of dependants. Whatever one does, one must be human and try to keep families together. That is in everybody's interest, and I am sure that everybody would approve it.
7.45 p.m.
That brings me to the question of the voucher holders. This is a matter particularly within the province of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. It is proposed that, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Sir, he should wind up the debate and indicate the considerations which, from the point of his Department, led him and the Government to the conclusion that, at any rate for the time being, the existing scale of applications which he grants—between 1, 600 and 2, 000 a month—should be continued.

Obviously, the matter must be subject to review and closely watched as the problem develops.
That leads me to the conclusion of what I ventured to describe as my outline of the problem and of my indication of measures which could be taken, if they were thought necessary, to reduce the numbers. But that is only part of the case. The case which I feel the Committee would wish to consider is that concerned with the more positive approach to this problem. It would be quite appalling if in our country, with all its great tradition of tolerance and fair play, of insistence on the rights and dignity of the individual, there were allowed to develop some sort of division between citizens in this country according to which they became first or second class citizens. Whatever we do, we must fight hard against that sort of thing.
I feel quite certain that if the Government give a lead, there is an enormous fund of good will among the people of this country towards any effort made either centrally by the Government, or locally by local authorities, or voluntary organisations, to which we should give the maximum help in any effort they make, to integrate new arrivals in the fullest sense into our community. I know that I will have everybody's agreement when I say that it is idle to pretend that we do not have a formidable task, but it is a task which, with good will, tolerance and understanding, we can surmount. After all, we cannot consider this matter purely in a national context. One of the greatest changes in the pattern of the modern world is the emergence of many new nations to independence whose citizens are coloured. I think that I am right in saying that, if one looks at the debating chambers in the United Nations, the majority of nations represented at the United Nations are coloured nations. One of the greatest challenges to modern civilisation is to prevent a clash and mounting misunderstanding between peoples of different colour and different races.
That is the world scene. It will be with us for decades. It is not just a passing phase. It is one which will be an abiding problem for all of us for as long as we live and for as long as our children live. We should do whatever we can to facilitate and accelerate the


process of building up understanding and of integrating the coloured citizens we have with us into our community. Obviously there will be a transitional stage, and during that stage there will be, as there clearly have been, social strains. But we must take a longer and a world view and relate our own activities to the world scene.
Against that background, what positive steps do we have in mind? One is this. I know that hon. Members, on both sides, both those who from the outset have felt an acute distaste for any control and those who from the outset have felt that control is necessary, will agree that it is essential to try to avoid the risk of harm to Commonwealth relationships. I know that everybody will agree to that.
We all agree that the Commonwealth, with its community of 750 million peoples of all colours and races, is the greatest grouping that the world has ever known for peace. Everybody would, I know, be most anxious not in any way, by any action that we take in our country, to impair the bonds which hold those peoples together. It is for this reason that the Government's approach has from the outset been that we should try to bring the Commonwealth countries into discussion with us to endeavour to take into account their point of view with regard to the working of our control. We can take their point of view into account and also—it is a two-way traffic—ask their help in assisting us to operate the control which, we think, we must operate. It is indispensable to prevent the gradual strain on our social services which otherwise would result.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has, some little time ago, already taken steps to make contact with the Commonwealth countries to bring about, when we have been able to carry out such review as we consider necessary of the working of our control, the necessary discussions at which that collaboration can take place between the Commonwealth and this country.
I draw the attention of the Committee to this second step. We have always thought that, if we are to try to bring about this integration in the full sense

into our community, an essential measure is legislation to prevent discrimination against coloured persons in public places. It is our intention to introduce that legislation.
Some people may wonder whether it is necessary now. It is the firm opinion of the Government that it is much better to anticipate any manifestations of colour prejudice that may develop rather than try to intervene ex post facto when the acuteness of feelings has already arisen which may be the consequence of demonstrations of colour prejudice. Therefore, we are firmly convinced that as soon as we can do so and as soon as we can frame the necessary legislation, we should introduce legislation on those topics. If we can find the necessary definitions—they are extremely difficult—we would add to that legislation against incitement. There are formidable difficulties of definition in the way of that legislation, but they are being closely studied; and if, as we hope, we can overcome those difficulties, we will couple that legislation with the legislation against discrimination.
I then go to the next point. Everybody would agree that the root cause of the problem with which we are faced is poverty and low living standards in the country of origin from which the immigrants come. We now have a Minister of Overseas Development who has her own Department. She and her Department can play a tremendous rocirc;le. She intends—and we all have every hope that she will succeed—to go far in assisting development in those countries and opening up in them the prospect for a fuller life for the inhabitants of those countries, for lack of which they have in large measure sought to come to this country as immigrants so that they may enjoy reasonable living standards which are absent in their own countries of origin. My right hon. Friend is considering anxiously her proposals which she will announce in due course, and in the course of this debate I would not seek to anticipate them.

Sir E. Boyle: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it realistic in this context to talk about these things without mentioning the population"explosion" in those countries? Do the right hon. Lady's responsibilities include this subject, and what can we do to help with it?

Sir F. Soskice: It would be obviously unrealistic to think that by the administration of her own Department and without more, my right hon. Friend can solve the whole problem of immigration. After all, the world is much smaller than it used to be; means of transport are far more extensive and one must, in the modern scene, reckon with the fact that there will be shifts of population on a far larger scale than was ever contemplated in the past. That is bound to happen. Even if development went on at a scale which is at present beyond all hope, obviously there would continue to be movements of population with which we would have to deal. Undoubtedly, my right hon. Friend will be able to help. Whether or not she checks immigration by providing better living standards in those countries, everybody would rejoice in any success which she achieved in raising living standards in those countries.
The hon. Member for Rugby, who moved the Amendment, referred to the difficulties of overcrowding, the difficulties of schools and the possible danger of certain schools, if they have more than a certain percentage of coloured pupils, becoming stamped as immigrant schools, with something approaching an unpleasant form of apartheid resulting. He spoke of the urgent need to stop all that sort of thing. A great deal of work has been done. Again, I would not seek to anticipate the steps now being actively investigated by my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Housing, Education, Health, and so on. Clearly, they have a big rôle to play in helping our country to absorb the newly-arrived immigrants and they will each, in due course, announce their proposals for playing their part in dealing with that problem.
That brings me to the end of my speech, but I do not want to conclude it without saying this. The question in this debate is whether the control should be continued for another year. The opinion has been expressed by, I believe, the hon. Member for Rugby that there should be more elaborate and more long-term legislation. I agree. Obviously, it must be reconsidered. We must reshape our control. We must watch the problem as it develops and so shape our legislation as to deal with it in its various

phases. For the present, we are merely asking for the control to be continued for a year.
I close with this remark so that there should be no doubt about the Government's view. The Government are firmly convinced that an effective control is indispensable. That we accept, and have always accepted, although we couple it with the feeling that the Commonwealth must be brought in. We must have an effective control whatever else we have.

Mr. Grimond: In response to a question from the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran), the right hon. and learned Gentleman said earlier that he could give the figures for Irish immigrants. I wonder whether he can give those figures and tell us how they are compiled. I always understood that they were not available.

Sir F. Soskice: I should like to answer the question by referring the right hon. Gentleman to an Answer given on 18th November, 1963, which gave the breakdown of those figures by the then Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. The reply is in HANSARD. It is elaborate and I would rather refer the right hon. Gentleman to it than weary the Committee with figures. The reply depends upon a nice calculation of those who have left and those who have come. The Committee may well understand that there is a considerable inflow in this country in and out of Southern Ireland.
I know that the hon. Member for Rugby put down his Amendment for the purpose of provoking discussion upon it. I hope that in view of what I have said, he will agree that the Government should have from this Committee an expression of view that the control should be renewed for one year.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I rise with trepidation to make my first speech in the House of Commons, but I am fortified by the knowledge of the kindness with which it is customary for hon. Members to hear the first speech of a new Member. In the last Parliament, I sat in this Chamber in what was literally, but in no other sense, a higher place, but where to give tongue would have been to court instant expulsion. That is, I hope, a hazard which I shall not run tonight.
I am proud indeed to be a Member of this ancient and honourable assembly and


proud to represent the constituency of Chelmsford, which is so typical of modern Britain and which has, I might inform my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise), a bishop who, while no supporter of the party opposite, has spoken out strongly on the racial issue. I am also very glad to be able to pay tribute to my predecessor, Sir Hubert Ashton, who served the State faithfully for so long and has now gone on to serve the Church. In his new position he is in charge of the investments and properties of the Church of England, so he is in the unique and happy position of being able to serve both God and Mammon. In Parliament he consistently upheld the traditions of progressive Toryism, and that is a path along which I am very happy to attempt to follow him.
8.0 p.m.
This Amendment tonight is a rather technical one and I hope I shall remain within the bounds of order, but there is nothing technical about the subject which underlies the subject of our debate, which is, indeed, part of a debate being conducted in every home in the country. It is a debate about the problem of how we are to live in peace and in mutual charity with those who share a common allegiance to the Crown but many of whom are different in colour from ourselves and have different national traditions and different national ways of life. What is at stake in this debate is really the continuance of the amity and civil concord which is at once the basic prerequisite of a civilised society and at the same time its highest achievement.
We have to consider in this discussion whether or not immigration from the Commonwealth should continue to be controlled, and, if so, how it can best be done. This is an issue on which people feel strongly. It is an issue where emotions and passions are involved; and it is, therefore, right that it should be discussed; but I think there is an inescapable duty on all in public life, and, if I may venture to say so, particularly on Members of this Committee, to seek in that discussion to moderate and assuage the force of passion by the counter force of reasonable argument.
One argument which, I trust, will not be put forward to this Committee tonight—I mention it because it is an argument

which is prevalent in the country—is that there should be stricter control of immigration because the crime rate and the prevalence of disease are higher amongst immigrants than amongst other sections of our population. Home Secretary after Home Secretary has denied this shameful and baseless allegation. I feel it is the duty of Members not only to refrain from presenting it themselves as an issue but to repudiate those who for electoral gain put it forward on their behalf. I do not think one can stand by on this issue like Pontius Pilate washing, or wringing, one's hands. I think one has a positive duty to dissociate oneself from that kind of support. I am not referring to the situation in Smethwick in particular, because I do not know what went on there at the time: I was busy in my own constituency. I mention it as a matter of general principle.
I trust that our discussion tonight. and any other discussion which is held here, will not be marred by any thought of party advantage or marked by a display of partisan venom, and, if I may be so bold, I would presume to offer the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary my own appreciation of the balanced, humane and informative way in which he has dealt with this problem tonight.
In passing—I do not say this for partisan purposes—may I say how much I regret the injection of rancour into an earlier discussion of this matter by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. That intervention must be at the back of our minds as we discuss this Measure, and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) brought it to the forefront. I feel that it is better left in the background. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister made a mistake. I think he is human and, therefore, it is not surprising. I think the temptation now is to exploit that mistake. I think it should be resisted, not out of tenderness for the right hon. Gentleman, because I do not think he needs it, nor, perhaps, deserves it, but because if we persist in keeping the discussion on the level to which it was unfortunately debased it will make it much more difficult to find the solution to the problem which involves not only the peace and happiness of many millions in this country at the present time but, as the Home Secretary has said, of generations of people to come.
Now I should like to say a word about the Act. To me the most that can be said for it is that it is a disagreeable necessity. I do not take very seriously the point made by members of the Government that the basic point at issue is one of consultation with the Commonwealth. I feel that, at the best, this view is wrong-headed, and at the worst a little hypocritical. I believe that there is general agreement that there should be some control, and far more important than the actual provisions of the Act are the manner and tone in which we discuss its provisions tonight and on other occasions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby criticised the Act because there were loopholes in it, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary spoke of evasion of the Act and of a level of evasion which would be tolerable. I should like to make this point, that it is precisely because there are loopholes in the Act, because there is the possibility for a certain amount of evasion, that the Act is tolerable. If I may use an illustration, which may not be familiar to the Committee but will be familiar to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran), it is rather like the Roman index of forbidden books, which is tolerable because to some extent it is unenforceable. If the Act were tightened and were to be made foolproof it could be done only at the price of an intolerable invasion of the very precious and basic liberty of all Commonwealth citizens to visit the mother country freely and with the minimum of interference. A certain amount of evasion, I think, is worth paying for the preservation of this freedom.
I should like to see one liberalising of the law. It was discussed in relation to the previous question of aliens. I should like to see the establishment of an appeals tribunal for Commonwealth citizens—it should certainly be established if one for aliens is to be established. People excluded from this country on health or other grounds should have an opportunity of appeal against executive decisions to a more impartial tribunal.
Of course, it will be said that we are in danger of being swamped by immigrants. Perils come and go. We had the yellow peril in the past and we have the black peril at the moment. Doubtless

there will be some other coloured peril in the future. I do not think that this peril of being swamped by immigrants was ever very much more than a myth. Basically, immigrants come to this country because there is work for them to do, and that is borne out by the very interesting statement of the Home Secretary who said that the rate of unemployment amongst immigrants was 2·5 per cent., a very low figure indeed. There is a built-in economic regulator of immigration, in the actual state of our economy. This was, I think, proved in 1958 and again in 1959, when the rate of immigration fell dramatically when there was a mild recession.
I think it is right that we should pay tribute to the work, the excellent work, which immigrants, on the whole, do. The Home Secretary referred to their work in the National Health Service. Anyone who has been in hospital knows how true this is. If there be prejudice, then let it be prejudice on the side of liberty, and let this Act be liberally interpreted.
Liberalism today—and I say this with a proper sense of respect for the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and his gallant band who occupy nearly three-quarters of the second bench below the Gangway—is not so much a party but a frame of mind. It is an attitude to social and moral problems which is the fruit of centuries of free and ordered Government. It is found in every part of this Committee, and I would also like to say on this issue in particular that illiberalism is found in every part of this Committee, too.
One other principle of the Act to which I should like to refer is that, whatever the controls at the ports, once a Commonwealth citizen has been admitted to this country he ranks equally with other citizens. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we should not have any second-class citizenship. How much I agree with that. We should deplore any attempt to do so. We should particularly deplore any attempt to deprive immigrants of the full protection of the courts. I know that we are not discussing the deportation proceedings tonight, but may I say in passing that any question of taking the jurisdiction over deportation away from the courts and giving it to the executive authority should be firmly resisted.
If the rights of those who immigrate to this country cannot be assured by the ordinary, normal, social processes, then I believe that there is a case for intervention by the legislature, and I was very interested in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's announcement that it is the Government's intention to introduce legislation to make certain forms of racial discrimination illegal. We must all regret the situation which has created the need for such legislation, but if it be necessary to secure one of the things which make life in this country worth living, namely, equality before the law, we as a legislature should not be afraid to take the necessary steps to ensure the enjoyment of basic human rights.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave us a lot of figures, and we are most grateful to him for them. I estimate that under the Act this year the net immigration will be between 70, 000 and 90, 000, but what folly it would be to admit even one immigrant to this country unless we are prepared to make an intense effort both in housing and education so that the problems of these immigrants are solved. I refer particularly to overcrowding which is a great social problem, and which causes such social tensions.
I am not saying that there should be preferential treatment for those who immigrate to this country, because, if we gave preferential treatment as such, we would merely increase tensions and not lessen them. But, at the same time, it is the duty of local authorities to see that those who come into this country and contribute to our wealth and prosperity are not, by reason of their social position, denied the amenities of civilised life. It is equally the duty of local authorities and other voluntary bodies to do all that they can to help those English residents who suffer most from the inevitable tensions created by new arrivals and who bear the burden of this problem literally on their doorsteps.
We often speak of a multi-racial Commonwealth, and we speak of it with pride. Today, in Britain, for good or ill, we have, and we are, a multi-racial society. Life would be easier were it not so. It would be simpler if we put up the shutters now and said, "No admission", but I think that we would lose by that more than we would gain.
8.15 p.m.
We should welcome the fact that we are a multi-racial society, because it makes us sharers in the greatest problem, apart from the problem of war and peace, which faces us in the twentieth century, namely, how men and women of different colours and different creeds are to live side by side and to work out their destinies in friendship and good will.
Today there are many people who are perplexed about Britain's role in the world. I believe that this debate highlights one contribution which we can make. We can build up a society in Britain which, for fairness, justice, and tolerance on the racial issue will be a model for the rest of the world. If this is successful, it will be a triumph not for power but for example. I believe that, if it can be achieved, it will be something worthy to rank with the greatest of our successes in the past.

Dr. David Kerr: It is always a daunting proceeding to address the Committee for the first time, and I have observed that it is not the habit of Members making their maiden speeches to pay any tribute to maiden speakers before them, but I hope that the Committee will understand my added difficulty in following the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas), and I hope that I am not trespassing on the normal practices of the Committee if I say how much I admired what he said, and the character which lay behind it. I only add, in reference to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about previous comments on the situation, that there are few burdens which we carry with greater difficulty than the burden of being forgiven by the other side.
Tolerance is the keynote of this debate, and I therefore should not ask the Committee for tolerance but rather for indulgence. I suppose that it is reasonable enough for a maiden speaker to select so non-controversial a subject as that selected by the hon. Member for Chelmsford, myself and others to embark on our careers as orators in this House. I do so because the constituency which has sent me here characterises, very frequently and in many ways, the problems which the workings of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act are throwing up before us.
I feel that I am not trespassing on anybody's feelings when I say that the matter of greatest regret to me, and perhaps to many others, is that the Committee should have to discuss this problem at all, and that it should discuss it, not in the context of Commonwealth immigration, which is what the title of the Act should indicate to us, but in the context of coloured immigration. I feel very deeply that to discuss it, even by implication, as we are now doing, in this way, is in some measure to give justification to people who think that the coloured problem is a special one. It is not a special problem. It is a special aspect of a whole series of problems.
I would not like to anticipate the discussions which will, I think, be fascinating and important when the measures adumbrated by my right hon. and learned Friend come before the House—measures to outlaw racial discrimination and racial incitement—but it is inevitable that in discussing this problem of Commonwealth immigration we should, in fact, be thinking, at the back of our minds, about some of these problems of racial differences.
I cannot, however, forbear to quote so authoritative and impartial a source as The Times. When the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill was discussed a year ago, The Times commented adversely, but it was before that, at the time of the passage of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, that it said, in an angry leader:
…we have to consider whether the Bill, eviscerated as…a non-discriminatory measure by the exemption of the Irish, is any longer capable of being acceptable at all with any shred of decency.
That was said not by anybody on either side of this House but by The Times.
I venture to draw the attention of the Committee to the very special problem to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has referred, namely, the exemption of students under the terms of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. I have in my constituency the Balham and Tooting College of Commerce, which is probably unique in the facilities that it makes available to an enormous variety of students emanating from Commonwealth countries.
Out of 866 full-time students at present pursuing courses in commerce and related subjects at the college, no less than

850 are from Commonwealth countries. The majority come from Ghana and Nigeria, but there are representatives from Tanzania, Uganda, India, Ceylon, Jamaica, and so on. The interesting thing is that these are the full-time students. The part-time students attending the college are all regarded as Londoners, which is a remarkable tribute to the process of integration of the parttime students.
In order to facilitate the solution of the inevitable problems that arise in such an area as this, the college, under the auspices of the London County Council, has taken three important steps. In order to select students who will not fall into embarrassing difficulties through lack of finance it goes carefully into the background and facilities at the command of those students. Secondly, it goes to great lengths to run induction courses for the students entering the college and, lastly, it has a full-time welfare officer who is engaged for a large proportion of her time in solving some of the problems met by some of the students.
I refer particularly to their problems for the reason that nobody has at any time suggested that students of this sort should be subject to control, yet in my constituency they form a significant part of a very large immigrant population. The population is difficult to compute, but is reckoned by some to be as much as 12 percent. or 13 percent. of the total population of Wandsworth, Central, and very many of these are people who are pursuing courses not only at the Balham and Tooting College but at the London School of Economics and other university centres. They face problems which are highlighted in our social difficulties and which too often are referred to as problems of immigration. They are not problems of immigration; they are problems arising from the shortage of houses and social amenities.
We are all aware that people who come to this country from no matter where face the same difficulties. This is particularly true of those who come to the south-east corner of Britain, where our immigration problem—and I say this meaning no offence to anybody in or out of the House—is contributed to as much by immigrants from Scotland and the north-cast of England as from Jamaica. I have often felt that if all Scotsmen wore


their kilts there would soon be a "Keep Britain Trousered" movement. In housing, the special problems of the immigrant population manifest themselves in a variety of obstacles to normal family life.
I want to refer particularly to the difficult problems faced by students of mature age who bring their wives over here—or perhaps I had better refer to the student of mature age who brings his wife over here. That would be a more tactful way of putting it. The inevitable processes of nature lead to the appearance of a new sort of immigrant—one who arrives on the obstetric delivery table. Unhappily, the difficulties which these people face in terms of housing accommodation, finance and the need to pursue a course of studies—often on the part of both husband and wife—have led to the farming out of these children, not for adoption but for fostering, often at remote distances. In some cases these children are well looked after, and in some cases they are not. In one case in my experience, where the necessity for fostering was recognised and embarked upon, the child subsequently died in a fire.
This sort of tragedy should be avoidable, and I hope that if we continue, as I earnestly hope we shall, to exempt students from the provisions of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, we will also recognise their special problems, which are different in kind and quantity from the problems faced by other immigrant groups.
I want to emphasise a further aspect of the problems that these people have to deal with, which was brought to my attention only this week by a Nigerian student who had pursued successfully a training course in accountancy at the college to which I have referred. He completed that part of the course with which the college dealt, and it was then necessary for him to find suitable employment so that he could proceed for his finals. Without this employment in a recognised post the A.C.C.A., the examining body, would not be able to allow him to sit for his final examination. The A.C.C.A. provided him with a list of recognised posts, to each of which he wrote, and from each of which he had a refusal.
This man is fortunately in command of sufficient independent means not to have to fall back upon our social security services, but that is not the point as far as he is concerned. He needs a job in order to make some sense of the two years which he has already spent in this country, exempted from the provisions of Commonwealth immigration. When we are thinking of the problem of racial discrimination we have to think of such small but very characteristic problems which are faced by some of our visitors in the scholastic field.
I shall not trespass much longer on the Committee's time. I want to end on a very hopeful note. It has been my pleasure for six years, on the other side of the river, to share the benches in County Hall with an able, courteous, intelligent, forthright and conscientious member of the Council, who is also a West Indian. I wonder if it is too much to hope that in the not too remote future we shall accept on these benches somebody of similar origin, who will make similar valuable contributions to the work of this House.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I am sure that the House would like me to congratulate the two hon. Members who have just made their maiden speeches. I very much want to congratulate them myself. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas) impressed us with his humane and compassionate approach, which was nevertheless realistic, from the point of view both of the immigrants and of those who live in the districts where they have to be received. We were, also particularly struck by his putting before us the ideal that this country could play a particularly distinguished part in what is undoubtedly one of the great tasks before the world—the achievement of a rise in the standard of living of the people in underdeveloped countries and lasting racial harmony.
As a former Minister of Education I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) on his particularly interesting survey of the problems confronting students from the Commonwealth, especially those who are in his constituency. The fact that there they have a full-time welfare officer is important.


One hopes that this idea will be widely adopted in other areas where similar problems may exist. It was very interesting that the hon. Member should say what I think is true, and what I hope to show later in my speech, that the problems of immigration are a thousand different ones merged together to produce one formidable problem.
The Home Secretary made a very conciliatory and informative speech which I think was appreciated by the whole Committee. It is the first time that we have had a speech of that kind on this subject from the Government Front Bench. It would undoubtedly have made a great deal of difference to the whole political climate in which this subject has been discussed in the House of Commons and in the country if a speech of that character had been made during the Second Reading of the Bill which became the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.
I shall have to return to this subject later and briefly, but for the present I should like to follow the Home Secretary in his survey of the immigration problem. As befits his position, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was mostly statistical. I wish to endeavour to supplement what he told the Committee from a more human viewpoint and to speak mainly from my own experience in the Midlands where I believe that about 30 percent. of the Commonwealth immigrants go. I am also closely connected with the City of Birmingham, and I believe that one in 10 of the immigrants go to that city. I shall try to deal with the problem objectively and fairly.
It gives me great pleasure to agree strongly with what has been said by the Home Secretary and other hon. Members about hospitals. It is a delight to visit hospitals, certainly those in the Midlands, and see the dark-skinned nurses going about their jobs. In one hospital which I know particularly well the phrase used about these nurses is that they "think the world of them". But, if I may say so, they are trained, they are under discipline, mostly they live in. If one asked the matron what is thought of the situation, and obviously one does so, the matron would be inclined to give the very practical kind of answer which one would expect from a matron—" They are excellent, but you do not want to

have too many of them."I wish to ask, are we to condemn such an attitude as a racialistic one? I should say no. I should say that it is a commonsense attitude.

Mr. Archie Manuel: It depends on the matron, of course.

Mr. Lloyd: I quite agree, but I am probably just as good a judge of a matron as the hon. Gentleman.
I find on the whole that teachers, although they are regarded as doing a useful job, have not achieved quite the same degree of acceptance by our own people as have the nurses. I turn now to the general workers and I say that, broadly speaking, they are excellent workers and highly regarded by many employers. Of course, the real difficulty arises over the problems of housing and social life.
How did many of these immigrants come to the Midlands? What happened in many instances was that they, or the Indian Housing Association on their behalf, bought an old house, as people said, a house old enough to be cheap and large enough to accommodate a lot of people in order that it might be paid for. Very often the people paid a large price for the house. What has been the immediate result? One knows—this has taken place in many streets—that the value of the rest of the property in the street would fall by about 30 percent. Why was this? The reason was that the original residents felt that slummy conditions would develop in the street. Young people were able to go away into a entirely different district. The older people, finding it more difficult to obtain a mortgage, stayed, but did so rather sullenly. The question one asks is whether this is the best way to introduce members of one race to another for the first time.
I hope the House will indulge me—I am going to touch on this very delicately, but it must be touched on because these are problems which actually affect our people in the Midlands. Conceptions of personal cleanliness are very high among Asians, but they are entirely different from those among Europeans, and there is no doubt that when the two meet for the first time this causes quite a shock, as it did in the


Midlands. I shall not stress this beyond just mentioning it, because I feel that it is a subject which falls into a class which I am now approaching where remedial action of a tactful kind can be taken and can yield good results.
The same thing applies to what was a serious grievance with regard to West Indians in Birmingham, and that was that, according, no doubt, to their customs in their own country, they kept jollifications going until the early hours of the morning. [Laughter.] This might seem to be a joke here, but it is not quite a joke for people who have to be at the factory early in the morning.

Mr. Manuel: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever been to Ireland?

Mr. Lloyd: Remedial action is beginning and this is a hopeful feature to which we want to fasten on. Again, and one might say that this is a small thing if one is not living in the street, Indians and Pakistanis look upon the occupation of houses in a way different from that of our own people. They do not bother to cut the hedges in the small front gardens. They let the land overgrow. [Laughter.] This is not a subject at which we should laugh. In the instance which I have in mind a liaison committee was set up to help relations between the races and in this case it was the Indian youth club which took the hint and neatly cut all the hedges in the street fronting houses occupied by Indians and Pakistanis. This is not something to laugh at but something about which we should be pleased because it is the beginning of good relations and the beginning of the healing of what might be serious wounds.
A wonderful job has been done in Birmingham by the liaison officer appointed by the city council. Undoubtedly he has the confidence of the immigrants and he has done invaluable work in helping them to adapt themselves to British conditions. This is very important. It is an idea which might well be adopted in other parts of the country.
The school problem has been mentioned. The real point here was undoubtedly the fear on the part of English parents that their children would be held back because Indian and Pakistani children, in particular, could not understand our language sufficiently well. In the

Midlands under various provisions and remedial Sections of the Education Act quite a number of teachers have been brought in to teach Indian and Pakistani children the English language so as to remove this grievance.
I move to a very sensitive area in the matter of social relations. I have noted the statement which the Prime Minister made last night. As I challenged him on the subject at the weekend, it is only right to acknowledge the courage of the Prime Minister in making the statement last night, directed as it must be to an extent towards his own supporters. But I feel increasing doubt whether we are wise to approach this problem by what I might call rolling generalisations and ex cathedra condemnations by bell, book and candle directed against particular classes.
We are all, of course, against the colour bar. [HON. MEMBERS "Oh."] Are the real circumstances in relation to these clubs quite as they now appear? I stand in the Committee and say that I have some sympathy for the Midlands working men's clubs concerned and I notice that The Guardian today referred in a rather interesting way to what a club is and how special it is. Indeed, the theory has always been that a club is an extension of the home. Here I quote what was said yesterday, as reported in the Birmingham Post today, by Mr. Cotterill, the general secretary of the West Midlands branch of the Club and Institute Union. This is what he said, in, perhaps, his rough and ready way:
We cannot have these people coming off a ship and walking straight into a working man's club.
I link that point with the second statement which the Prime Minister made in his speech last night, when he referred to the importance of improving the standard of living in the Commonwealth countries so that no man would be driven here by the whip of poverty. This I enthusiastically support, and I hope, as the Home Secretary does, that the Minister of Overseas Development will have great success in her work. But it is, inevitably, a long-term job, as we all know very well. The Home Secretary himself referred to the immense numbers, some 700 million people, and these alone mean that it will be a long-term job. We must, therefore, face present facts.
I think that this has a bearing on the point of view of working men's clubs in the Midlands. A large number of Commonwealth immigrants come, say, from the Punjab. In the House we have talked endlessly about the underdeveloped countries and about the smallness of people's incomes there, as little as £20 or £25 for a whole year. When they come off the ships to which Mr. Cotterill referred, they come to an area where many people, and possibly even they themselves, will earn that amount in a week.
The standards of our Midlands working people today are high. We are very glad that they are. We still speak of the working man in this country although the term is really getting a bit out of date. By world standards, however, the Midlands working man is a rich middle-class man, and he attaches enormous importance to the standards which he has built up. Therefore, I feel that we must have some sympathy with him when he wishes to be a little careful, not necessarily on account of the colour of a man's skin but on account of the completely different approach a newcomer may have when he first arrives in this country.
The arrival of very large numbers of Commonwealth immigrants so suddenly has been a very great shock in the areas where they have been concentrated. The Home Secretary himself used the expression "a formidable problem". Nevertheless, we note that helpful remedial action is beginning. I plead with the Committee that, at this stage, we ought not to put too much strain on these early beginnings of remedial action.
I was very much impressed by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford when he urged that it would be better if we did not let in one unless the quality of life which he had here and the treatment which he received were worthy. It is on that basis that I venture to make my plea. I quite understand when the Home Secretary says that we must consider this question in a world context, and I understand if it is thought that we should make a contribution in allowing immigrants from the Commonwealth into this country, but much more important than whether the numbers should be a little larger or a little smaller is the quality of the life which we can give them when they come. If, as I believe, racial harmony

will be much helped if we keep the numbers, at least for the time being, on the low side, then we should be well advised to take that course.
8.45 p.m.
I must turn here, I fear on a rather sharper note, to the attitude of the parties to this matter in recent times. The party opposite voted against the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, and we held that they were utterly wrongheaded in doing so. We believed that to support that Bill was the right course for the friends of racial harmony, and we held then, and we hold now, that in opposing the Bill hon. Gentlemen opposite were, in effect—though not, of course, in intention—stirring up racial disharmony in this country in a major way. It was, of course, their constitutional right to vote against the Bill, but it was our constitutional right to hold them to account for it in the constituencies. But then there was a peculiar new phase. The self-righteousness of hon. Gentlemen opposite was so great that they denounced anyone who so much as mentioned the Bill or the problem in the country. They denounced them as racialists. It was nothing less than a gigantic smear campaign. In fact, hon. Gentlemen opposite had every reason to be ashamed of the shifts and turns of their policy on this matter.

Mr. Manuel: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lloyd: No. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. I wish to make my own speech.
Even the supporters of hon. Gentlemen opposite were dismayed. I noticed that in the Fabian Society journal published in September it was stated that it was feared that the policy of the party opposite as then declared would be taken by the electors as evasion. The journal went on to say:
It would be foolish to deny that there are ambiguities in the general policy that Harold Wilson outlined last November.
We deeply resent this campaign by the party opposite. Yet it is apparently completely accepted by that party. I quote what was said by the Leader of the House last week:
The gentleman who was the Conservative candidate I had never met before, and I met him only once when we were both canvassing.


By one look at him and by shaking his hand I knew that there would be no mention of the Commonwealth immigrants problem in that constituency—nor was there. But it is not a scrap of good pretending that this problem was not raised in Smethwick and in other constituencies. It was raised."—ICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1964; Vol. 701, c. 968.]
It is a very peculiar constitutional doctrine that an important, controversial Bill, fought over bitterly in this House, must not be mentioned during the ensuing General Election.

Mr. Manuel: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lloyd: No. I shall not be long now.
Apparently we can still argue the matter in this House, but, according to hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is not fit to be discussed by the common people in the constituencies, whom one hon. Member opposite even described as "the illiterate electors".
One of the main bases of the opposition to the Bill by the party opposite was the exclusion of Southern Ireland from it. Amid all the shifts and changes of the policy of the party opposite this has never been withdrawn. What are they going to do now? They now have responsibility, and we shall wait to see how they reconcile their previous pledges with the national interest.

Mr. Ivor Richard: It is a privilege to be able to make a maiden speech, particularly after the last three speeches from right hon. and hon. Members opposite. I am supposed to be noncontroversial and I hope that anything I say hereafter will be taken in a noncontroversial sense. I want to answer, to begin with, some observations made by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd). He said that we on this side of the House objected to the question of immigration being raised in the election. Of course we did not. This was clearly an issue which should have been raised and discussed. What we objected to during the election, and what we object to today, was not the raising of the matter but the way in which it was raised.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: rose—

Mr. Richard: If the right hon. Gentleman will be so kind as to bear with

me, I will give him some concrete examples of how the issue was raised—I have past reports in The times—and one of how it may be raised, so it seems, by the Conservative candidate in the coming by-election at Leyton.
I am sorry that the debate should have taken this turn. Up to the time that the right hon. Gentleman spoke, this had seemed to me, as a maiden speaker, to be a constructive debate in which hon. Members on both sides were genuinely attempting to come to grips with a problem which is, on any view, one which must be dealt with and grasped firmly. With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I tell him that his contribution did not help the cause of integration. With the greatest respect to some hon. Members opposite, I say that some of their remarks in the country during and since the election have not helped the cause of integration either.
Of course, problems arise from immigration—problems of housing, education and all the other tremendous problems of injecting a coloured minority into already overcrowded areas. The constituency I have the privilege to represent is just such a constituency where we have problems of bad housing and of people living cheek by jowl, overcrowding and multiple accommodation. We are also faced with the problems of immigration. The immigrants are not all coloured. There are a number of Irish among them. We are faced with these problems, but the one thing that we have not done is merely to say, "These are the problems but we will not try to deal with them." That, with the greatest respect, is what some hon. Members opposite are saying.
All the arguments presented by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield come down to this: "There are these problems. We will not deal with them but we will put a complete stop on people coming into the country." The immigration problem is something which should be discussed in a calm, rational and helpful tone. Perhaps it is not for me to say so—in fact, I am sure that it is not and I apologise here and now—but I honestly do not think that the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman were helpful.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what we objected to. I have here certain newspaper cuttings. Some happen to refer


to the campaign in Smethwick. I represent a London constituency, and I was not in Smethwick during the election, since I was fully occupied with affairs of my own. But in London as well as in the Midlands the question of immigration was raised, not only in the form of sober discussion as to whether there should be control but in a "colour" way. I have concrete evidence of this.
I know of people on the doorstep being told about immigration in that way, and Conservative canvassers told them. It is idle for right hon. and hon. Members opposite to deny that the issue of colour was raised in this way during the General Election. because it was raised. If the Committee needs further evidence, let me quote two or three remarks from The Times of 9th March last. I accept that this deals with Smethwick and I use it simply as an illustration of what seems to many of us on this side a dangerous attitude which may be growing up in British politics. The Times' Midland correspondent reported:
I asked Mr. Griffiths why the Conservatives had refused to appoint a working delegate to a local committee formed to try and reconcile conflicting groups in the town. Mr. Griffiths said it was because the committee stood for integration.
I ask the Committee to note those words.
No racial group wanted integration: coexistence should be the aim.
I thought that this doctrine of separate and equal development on the part of both the coloured and white races had been overthrown in most civilised societies. It is not right and proper to see it raising its head in a British General Election in 1964.
Later on, the hon. Member for Smethwick was asked about the slogan:
If you want a nigger neighbour, vote Labour.
He said:
I should think this is a manifestation of the popular feeling. I would not condemn anyone who said that. I would say that is how people see the situation in Smethwick. I fully understand the feelings of the people who say it.
He is fully entitled to say that he understands their feelings, but it would be tragic if the British General Election of 1964 went down in history as the first General Election in which colour was an issue; not immigration but colour.
Where do we go from here'? I saw in the Observer last Sunday that the Conservative candidate at the coming Leyton by-election had had something to say. I should like to read it to the Committee and I hope that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield will note these remarks:
Referring to the last election campaign, Mr. Buxton said: 'While I was canvassing, many people complained about the immigration of coloureds. They do not resent coloured people as such, but they do object to the blacks coming off the banana boats and taking council houses that would be available for locals.'
If the Conservative candidate used those words, even if he was using them only to express the point of view of the electorate in that constituency, he was wrong to do so in those terms. Such language can only exacerbate a situation which may already be difficult.
That is why we say to the party opposite that it should not have used this issue in this way at the General Election. The problem we face is not so much of immigration as of integration. How are we to try to integrate coloured people already in this country into our community? I will say this as non-controversially as I possibly can—the one way in which it will not be done is by using the sort of language certainly used by members of the Conservative Party during the General Election.
I speak as one who has been in the House of Commons only three weeks. Perhaps I should not have said what I have said tonight, but I do not propose to withdraw what I have said. If I have erred, it is because, like other hon. Members, I feel very strongly about this issue. Whatever the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield may say about the Labour Party Front Bench, he cannot say it about me, because I was not a Member when the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was debated some two years ago. However, I accept the principle that there must be control of immigration from the Commonwealth into this country.
Having said that, it seems to me that the real problem is how to integrate the people already here into the existing community. It can be done by attempting to do three things. The first is to give special Government aid to areas which


find themselves in need of that aid because of the problem in those areas. Secondly, we should put on the Statute Book a general declaration by the whole Parliament of the United Kingdom, and I hope that the Bill when introduced will be an all-party Bill, supported by the party opposite, declaring that this nation does not agree with racial discrimination and that it abhors racial discrimination in all its forms and further declaring that incitement to racial feeling or hatred shall be a criminal offence. The third thing is that all of us, at whatever level, should look inside ourselves, because integration begins with personal relations and not with Acts of Parliament.
I am sure that I have greatly trespassed on the Committee's indulgence, but if I have it is only because I feel very strongly about this issue. This is an important debate. It is a debate being heard in areas far wider than the United Kingdom and far wider than this Parliament or my constituency. If I thought that in 100 years' time someone would pick up HANSARD and read that the House of Commons tonight expressed views which, on any view of the matter, were openly racialist, I would be ashamed to be a Member of it.

Sir E. Boyle: On a point of order, Mr. Hynd. I raise this point of order solely with the interests of the House at heart. I realise that there is no rule of order strictly regarding maiden speeches, but is it not the convention of the House, fairly long accepted, that a maiden speech is not normally delivered in terms which provoke a debating reply? I raise that point simply because traditions are made in this House and I am keen to do what is best in the interests of the House of Commons.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): That is not a point of order. I agree that it is a convention, but it is not the sort of thing that the Chair can rule upon.

Mr. Parkin: Further to that point of order. Is it not the case, Mr. Hynd, that my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) fought his way into this House yard by yard in the face of the sort of tactics that he has been describing and that he has every right to describe them?

The Temporary Chairman: That is not a point of order either.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The point of order that I wish to raise is that whatever else may be in the tradition of the House of Commons, the very first tradition is the right of every hon. Member, provided he keeps in order, to say anything he wants.

The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Aubrey Jones.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) will be the first to recognise that the maiden speech which he has just given was unconventionally vigorous and controversial. I should like to say that it was none the worse for that. While I envy him his boldness—I could never have done it myself—I congratulate him on his effort. I am sure that the whole Committee will look forward, if I may use the word, with relish to further contributions from him.
It should be the aim of every member of the Committee to see an abatement of any tension arising from a difference of culture or colour. If we subscribe to this end, we all have a duty to take this matter out of party politics. This was the precedent set by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas) in his admirable maiden speech, and in that I propose to follow him.
If we look at events over the past three years, there has been a considerable narrowing of the differences between the two sides of the Committee. Both sides of the Committee are agreed tonight that it is desirable to continue this law. Until this debate began, I would have said that the one possible remaining difference between us was over the long-term nature of any control over immigration. I would have said that right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the Committee were in favour in the longer term of continuing statutory control, while right hon. and hon. Members opposite were in favour of substituting for that statutory control a looser regulation arising from some kind of negotiation with individual Commonwealth countries. After listening to the speech of the Home Secretary, I am not at all sure that even that difference now persists.


The right hon. and learned Gentleman ended his speech by talking of effective control. That is tantamount, to my mind, to abolishing almost entirely the one persisting difference between the two sides of the Committee.
I will give my reasons why I believe that the aim of abating racial tension is better secured with statutory control rather than through voluntary arrangements; but I also believe—and to this extent I go with the hon. Member for Barons Court—that by far the greater problem is not that of those now coming into the country but of the immigrant population already settled here.
I would remind the Committee of the genesis of the Act. This Measure was the product of a dilemma which we still have with us. The dilemma was that economically we needed the immigrants but that socially we were proving ourselves unable to cope with the immigrants coming in. The more we tried to satisfy our economic requirements by bringing in immigrants the greater the social difficulties we were making for ourselves. The more we tried to cope with the social problems by stemming the flow of immigration the more we were penalising ourselves economically.
That was the situation three years ago and this is still the dilemma, only we now have it in a much worse form. Economically we still need immigration, and I will produce to the Committee two pieces of evidence to sustain this view. The first is the striking contrast between the rate of immigration into this country and the rate of immigration into other Western European countries. The rate here for the last three years has been roughly 50, 000 a year, but in West Germany in the same period it has been between 350, 000 and 400, 000 a year. In Switzerland it has been of the same magnitude. In France it has been at the rate of 200, 000 a year and even in Belgium last year it was 26, 000. Anybody concerned with the slow rate of economic growth in this country must ponder over the contrast of these figures. That is one reason why I consider that economically we still need immigrants.
The second piece of evidence I would adduce is that according to the estimates of the Government Actuary the population

of this country will have grown by 1975 by 6½ million people. Of that figure, 5 million will be either too young or too old to work and of the remaining 1½million, 750, 000 will be immigrants. In other words, the population of the country is increasing while the working force is practically stationary.
It is difficult to see how one can service a community of this kind of composition without some element of immigration. This, as I see it, is the economic need, the economic side of the dilemma, while on the social side the problem over the intervening years has become much worse, precisely because of the figures given earlier by the Home Secretary.
He gave as 800, 000 the approximate size of the immigrant population already here. This population has a higher birth rate than the rest of the population and if the birth rates are projected we see that while at present the immigrant population of 800, 000 amounts to between 1½percent. and 2 percent. of the population, by the year 2000, at the present rate of immigration, the proportion of immigrants to the total population of the country will have grown to 4·5 percent.—and even without any further immigration it will have grown to 3·5 per cent.
This could mean—and I do not want to weary the Committee with figures—that in areas where there are at present heavy concentrations of immigrants, perhaps 10 percent. or 15 percent. of the population, that concentration might rise to something like 50 per cent. Having said that, we must now ask why should this be a problem? I think the answer is that no community is easily tolerant of difference. We pride ourselves, possibly with justification, that we are more tolerant than other communities, but we cannot claim that we are immune from intolerance.
We are trying to absorb three new and quite different cultures: the West Indian culture, probably the nearest to our own; the Indian culture, which is more different; and, possibly the most different culture of all, the Muslim culture of the Pakistani. In all these cases the difference in culture is compounded by the difference of colour and therefore is likely to extend far longer down the generations than anything we have seen in the past.
The question which we face is: how do we abate the intolerance to which this situation can give rise? The answer, I suggest, is that we must recognise that difference creates a problem. Only if we accept that can we ever begin to overcome the problem. The case for the 1962 Act was that it was the beginning of this kind of recognition and it enabled one to approach the problem consciously. If I may use a word from the vocabulary of hon. Members opposite, it enables one to approach the problem purposefully. This is the case for statutory control as against control arising from voluntary negotiation.
This is a field in which we must be purposeful, but the purposefulness must go far beyond the mere continuance of this Act. I think that the purposefulness must extend into our internal policies at home. What has worried me of recent weeks is the suggestion that if we reduce the numbers of immigrants then automatically the immigrant population already here will be assimilated and everything will come right. I believe that this is the wrong way to look at the problem. We should look at it precisely the other way round. In other words, we have to deal with the problem of the immigrant population already here. Having solved that problem, we can then admit more immigrants and raise the level of immigration much nearer to the economically desirable level.
What changes would I make at home in our internal policies to deal with the immigrant population already here? There is a case, as I see it, for precisely the kind of change which we made when we introduced the 1962 Act. Before that Act, we assumed that just because of the common heritage of Commonwealth the differences of culture and colour automatically disappeared. When we introduced the Act we did away with that assumption concerning immigration, but we have left the assumption unchanged concerning our internal policy, and this is where we have to make the change. The 1962 Act must be complemented by changes here at home in two respects: first, as far as investigation preparatory to policy-making is concerned, and, secondly, as far as the policy itself is concerned.
This afternoon we had a great number of figures from the Home Secretary, but they were global figures. We know very little, as he admitted, about the health of the immigrant population, about the nature of their employment, and about their likely demand for schooling. We know little or nothing about any of these things, precisely because it has been assumed that to collect separate figures for the coloured immigrants would smack of discrimination. Once we recognise that difference creates a problem, only by having separate figures do we stand a chance of overcoming the problem. I want to see us achieve the end of discrimination, but to realise that end we must have separate figures. That is as to the investigation.
9.15 p.m.
Now, the internal policy. The great objective of internal policy as I see it is to prevent the segregation of the immigrant population into ghettoes in the decaying centres of our large cities. In other words, the great objective of policy should be the dispersal of the immigrant population. I recognise immediately that this leads to immense difficulties. It is more than just a matter of giving extra aid from the central administration to local authorities. This leads to enormous problems. Although we have no figures, it would be true to say that the immigrants have had a far smaller proportion of the new housing which has become available than their numbers entitled them to. The points system—the length of time that people are on a waiting list—operates against them. Even more, however, the points system is such that it can be manipulated to discriminate against the immigrants.
If we are to break up the ghettoes such as we see in the decaying centre of Birmingham, we have to make housing available to immigrants in larger proportion than their numbers entitle them to. This is the awful difficulty, this is our travail, because to do this is to invite resentment from citizens who are native to these islands, and yet not to do it will perpetuate the problem of the ghetto into the future, causing problems of unknown dimensions to our children and our grandchildren.
It is not for me as an outsider to advise those in authority how to cope with this


problem. I merely observe that all problems are better tackled earlier rather than later and that this problem has already been allowed to grow for far too long.
In the last few weeks, we have seen a great refurbishing of the machinery of government—in ways which I do not yet fully understand. If, however, there is one field where the machinery of government requires overhaul, it is in connection with immigration. This question touches labour, education, housing, health, overseas development and what not. All these aspects need to be looked at together. If there is a case anywhere for a single co-ordinating authority, it is here in relation to this question.
I hope that the Government will set up such a co-ordinating authority. Its aim should be to put an end to the discrimination arising from the difference of culture or colour. But to realise this end the coordinating authority must inject into all policies, domestic as well as immigration, a far greater purposefulness than we have yet seen.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: Ten Parliamentary days have passed since the Gracious Speech. I am conscious that by the standards of this Parliament I am therefore a rather elderly "maiden". I am also conscious of the quality of maiden speeches which have preceded mine and of my inability to live up to that standard. I am, however, particularly pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones).
In the great conflict over Commonwealth immigration which engulfed Birmingham during the recent election, I often felt that the right hon. Member and his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) were more with me than against me. I offer that not in an attempt to embarrass either of those right hon. Gentlemen, but as an opportunity to pay my tribute to the point of view they then expressed. It was not so much that we invariably agreed about detail and about detailed policy, but, at least, we conducted our arguments from a basis, I hope, of rationalism rather than of prejudice. Wishing sincerely, as I do, not to contravene the conventions of this Committee about maiden speeches I should be less than honest if I did not say that the processes

of rational discussion were not always observed when Commonwealth immigration was discussed in Birmingham six weeks ago. I think it is particularly appropriate that Birmingham Members should play such a large part in this debate this evening, and I hope that it is not inappropriate that I should be one of them.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hall Green has referred to the decaying centres of the great industrial towns. The division which I have the honour to represent in this Committee, the Sparkbrook division of Birmingham, is such a decaying centre. In the last Parliament it was represented by Mr. Leslie Seymour who was preceded by Mr. Percy Shurmer. But the significant fact about my division is that for 40 years before 1945 it was represented by Conservative Members, whose support came from the large middle-class houses which are so well known in industrial towns. Those large houses are now almost invariably broken down from single family occupation to multi-occupation, and the problem of immigration, connected with the housing problem, is a problem next to Spark-brook's heart.
I think that those of us who regard ourselves as being in the progressive group, a description given to us by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise), a description which I accept willingly, although I understand it was offered as a criticism, have, I think, something to answer for in our attitude to Commonwealth immigration over the last five years. We have believed with great liberal optimism—I am told that in this Chamber one has to be essentially optimistic to be Liberal—that if men of good will went on repeating the right things, eventually they would be believed and eventually they would be accepted. Our great fault over the last five years is that we have talked a great deal about racial tolerance and racial integration and done far too little about the practicalities of bringing it about.
In my own division the Sparkbrook Association was formed to perform this task. It was formed by the churches, by voluntary bodies and by private individuals and it is assisted a little with money and mostly by advice from public bodies. Its function is to try to eradicate the frictions which inevitably


exist in an area like my constituency into which immigrants come in great numbers. Certainly, living and working in Sparkbrook eliminates any chance of an optimistic belief that immigrants can be assimilated into the community without a great deal of hard work and a great deal of effort. The association about which I tell the Committee has gone out of its way to make that effort and to put in that hard work.
Old houses have been bought, improved, and converted. Advice has been given about English customs and English laws. Some steps have been taken to enforce laws where it appeared that they were going by default. Children have been encouraged to accept Birmingham attitudes rather than West Indian or Asian attitudes, and, as well as the practical application of the job of racial integration there has been the overriding and continual repetition of the philosophical—I think this is the right word—the philosophical effects of equality, of justice, and of racial tolerance. I understand from a very distinguished representative of Birmingham that 70 years ago Joseph Chamberlain received great censure for saying that what Birmingham does today surely the rest of the country can do tomorrow. I want to avoid even that degree of controversiality and say that what the Sparkbrook Association is doing today no doubt the rest of the country will do tomorrow.
I want to warn my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that all Birmingham Members of Parliament will be most anxiously awaiting their proposals for material help for those areas which have a specific immigration problem. For my own part, speaking with a slight experience of local government, I hope that the help will not take the form of a general grant to local authorities to pay for all sorts of diverse purposes. I hope that there will be a sum specifically allocated to those authorities prepared to do something about immigrants' housing, prepared to do something about additional health inspectors for the enforcement of overcrowding laws, prepared to do something about the general conditions in areas in which immigrants are found concentrated. I repeat to my right hon. Friends on the

Government Front Bench that I, in common with all other Birmingham Members, will be looking forward eagerly and impatiently to the announcement which they are soon to make about this sort of assistance.
My second point—and I apologise in anticipation of the suggestion that there is a degree of controversiality in what I have to say—is that it is essential to establish a code of conduct which makes illegal incitement to racial violence and racial hatred. All the practical work which voluntary organisations and the Government may do is bound to be vitiated if a number of people who do not share our progressive views play on the prejudices, fears and wrong thinking of certain members of the community.
Having observed the attitude of hon. Gentlemen opposite when a previous maiden speaker was critical of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd), I make reference to his speech with some trepidation. I suspect, however, that he at least might forgive me. I was his opponent in 1959, and think that he must feel a little charity towards me because I left Sutton Cold-field an even safer Conservative seat than I found it. I hope that for that favour he will forgive my one critical comment about his speech.
The right hon. Gentleman knows, as I do, that tomorrow morning the Birmingham papers, quite rightly and justly, will report all that he has said in great detail, and I suspect that, knowing his speech as well as he must, he realises that that report will take the form of a catalogue of the differences between ethnic Birmingham citizens and the immigrants who have come to live amongst them. I think that he spent a quarter of an hour categorising the differences. I have no doubt that his speech was motivated by a genuine desire to achieve greater integration. There is equally no doubt that the million people who tomorrow morning read his comparison of the difference between the two groups will react in quite the opposite way to the way in which the majority of the Committee believe they should.
Dr. King, I feel that I am entitled, and no doubt you will tell me if I am wrong, to be less than controversial in one other


respect. As I understand the convention of maiden speeches, one is entitled to be as uncontroversial as one chooses, as long as one is aggressive only about groups not actually represented in the House. Therefore, I feel that I am entitled under the terms of that convention, and bound under the terms of duty, to draw the attention of the Committee to the inevitable lunatic fringe groups which associate themselves with any public discussion on Commonwealth immigration, and the necessity for Commonwealth immigrants to be properly integrated into this country.
I understand that during the day a copy has been sent to the House of a leaflet which is current in many London suburbs. It is published by the British National Party. As is invariably the case with such lunatic groups, the pamphlet is ludicrous in parts. It suggests that the civilisations of Egypt, Greece, and Rome died because of Commonwealth immigration. Were it simply foolish, it would not be worth wasting the time of the Committee in drawing attention to this reprehensible leaflet, but in places it is frankly disgusting.
It is with some trepidation that I read paragraph 3 of what the British National Party promises will be the outcome of any Commonwealth immigration into this country. It says:
In America where the white man is being forced to integrate with the negro, the common bond of integration is inevitably the bedroom.
It is not possible to consider with any degree of objectivity, with any degree of rationality, an issue which, no matter how vitally important it is to the nation, automatically produces that sort of reflex in certain groups and in certain people.
That is why some of us who are deeply concerned with, and affected by, this problem urge my right hon. Friends seriously to consider the possibility of increasing the penalties—I believe that in some ways it is now possible to indict and to convict—against those who incite violence and hatred in this way. Those of us who have fought our campaigns in Birmingham are particularly aware of this. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to a now defunct but not missed—and, I understand, only dormant rather than dead—organisation, by name the Birrningham Immigration Limitation Association. Apart from the remark-

able lack of euphuism in the title of this association, it has dedicated itself over the last five years to propagating racial hatred and violence. It has pursued the anti-Commonwealth immigration cause in a most violent and reprehensible way.
9.30 p.m.
I want to make it clear that I have no personal objection, in that the organisation did not raise its head in my campaign. But I think that I am entitled to say that the members of the campaign who were resident in my division left the Sparkbrook area and followed one of their founding fathers, Mr. Finney, and conducted their activities in the Borough of Smethwick. No matter how much real aid is given to the areas with genuine problems; no matter how much intensive effort is put in by individuals and corporate organisations, we will not solve the problem until we can root out these people who, for political, psychological and pathological reasons, wish to exploit the fears, the tensions and the hatreds.
Therefore, I support the continuation of this Act this evening, in the hope that it will be regarded as an interim Measure, on which two other things are based. First, there must be genuine physical help for those areas that suffer—and I do not apologise for the word "suffer" because suffer it is. If one is living in overcrowded conditions— and this is a matter of housing rather than immigration policy—if one is short of doctors—and this is a matter of health rather than immigration policy—if one is short of all sorts of other amenities because of periods of neglect, the influx of immigrants produces problems which the Government must provide special help to solve.
The second thing that the Government must do is somehow to create an atmosphere or climate in which those people who seek to exploit the situation for their own ends, no matter what those ends may be, are penalised not only by the absolute public disgust of the majority of the people of this country but also by the force of English law.

Mr. Renton: I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will wish to join with me in congratulating the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on his excellent maiden


speech. It was modest, sincere and good humoured, and it was delivered with enviable fluency.
He dealt with a controversial subject in a cleverly non-controversial way. It was most interesting to hear from him, as we have heard from others, that—to use his words—they had a rational discussion when this question was discussed in Birmingham. In the course of the few remarks that I have to make I shall be returning to some of the points that he made.
He may not know, but other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen may remember, that I had some part in presenting and explaining to the House the Act which we are now extending. I am much relieved, after the passage of two and a half years, to find that the need for it is now widely accepted, although it was so strenuously contested then. The Home Secretary made a most laudable maiden speech as Home Secretary. I congratulate him both on his appointment to that great office and upon the way that he so frankly, if that is not too appropriate a word, put the figures before us today. Also he, very candidly, pointed out the evasions which have been and are occurring in the administration of the Act. I am sure he would agree with me that these evasions are not the fault of the immigration service. They are, to a very great extent, the fault of those of us who, when piloting the Measure, yielded too much to the pressure for great humanity. I do not think it should be held against us that the Act contains weaknesses of that kind. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to face the fact that if, as he says, he must prevent these evasions in future, he must to some extent go back on the very high standard of humanity at which we aimed at that time, and I concede that we were doing so under pressure from almost the whole of the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister seems to cling to the erroneous belief that the Act was based on a colour bar. I never understood the allegation then, and now it looks very strange in the light of the figures given today by the Home Secretary, that out of a net increase from the whole Commonwealth of 138, 000 people in the last two-and-a-quarter years, no fewer than 120, 000 have come from the new

countries of the Commonwealth. So whatever view people may have had at the time the Measure was introduced, we may all rest assured that it has not worked as a colour bar.
I concede—I think it may be the only point which the Prime Minister and others could conceivably continue in alleging that there was a colour bar—that by not controlling the Southern Irish, although we took power to do so, we placed the Irish in a better position than any Commonwealth people of any colour. But surely we cannot really be blamed for that either. When the party opposite introduced the British Nationality Act of 1948, they decided, I think once and for all, that the Irish should "have their cake and eat it", and it was very difficult for us to go back on that settlement.
The Prime Minister has made clear to us—I was not clear whether the Home Secretary was endorsing him today, if so perhaps he will interrupt me and make himself clear—that the Government propose to negotiate with the Commonwealth to get an agreed scheme based on a quota system in order to replace the control based on the 1962 Act. If that be the case, I advise the right hon. Gentleman most sincerely, although with great humility, not to be too optimistic about such an alternative, because I know that there are some formidable snags about it. I hope that the Committee will think it right that I should mention them.
The first is, of course—I think that in his speech the right hon. and learned Gentleman accepted it—that we should still have to have our own control, whatever agreement we reach with the Commonwealth. If we are to have our own control we shall need this Act, or even a stronger one, to make sure that agreed quotas are properly enforced.
In my time at the Home Office—which was an unconscionably long time—we tried to get India and Pakistan to operate a voluntary control, from about 1956 onwards. It was not a very stringent control. It broke down mainly because it was based solely on the issue of passports, a thing which the Governments of those two countries found it very difficult to restrain.
Even if a fresh and thorough attempt were made to get Commonwealth countries to co-operate in administering a


quota scheme, there would still be inherent difficulties which it would be very hard to overcome in practice.
The first is that they have a very strong interest in encouraging emigration from their own countries. Any kind of control on either emigration or immigration is difficult to administer. It requires immense tradition and experience and one starts off therefore with the natural inherent handicap that the countries which we would be asking to co-operate would not have their heart in this side of the job.
The next point is that India and Pakistan, in particular, would have at their end to beat what I understand are financial racketeers in those countries which have made a good many immigrants their victims. It is difficult to get at the facts on this matter. There have been various newspaper reports. I do not suppose that if I pressed the Home Secretary to give us precise information about this he would be able to do so, but I have no doubt that there is sufficient evidence of it to put us on our guard. We know that forged passports have been a feature of this traffic for some years even before control under the Act. We were getting forged passports even in the days of the voluntary control and one has read in the newspapers, though one has no means of confirming it, that forged employment vouchers have also been part of this racket. If we had a quota scheme I have no doubt that we should have the same kind of trouble.
There is no doubt also that a quota scheme cannot be effectively related to our own labour requirements, which are changing all the time. I say that because there is an inevitable time lag between the date when the quota is negotiated and the much later date when the immigrants would arrive under it. As long as twelve months could elapse, and meanwhile employment conditions here could change very sharply.
Then in order that the quota scheme might be effective, the countries of the Commonwealth concerned would have to help us by sifting their own emigrants to ensure that only those people coming for permanent settlement came here tinder the quota scheme and that people

did not evade it by coming as students, visitors, members of families and so on.
There is the further difficulty about a negotiated scheme which must be faced. We had great difficulty over this matter under the Act as we have it. It is that the Governments of both Northern and Southern Ireland would have to be consulted as well as the Commonwealth countries, and the border between Ulster and the south is still there and will remain there. I do not want to go deeply into this delicate matter but I am certain that it would be futile to try to negotiate an agreed scheme with the Commonwealth without consulting both Ulster and Southern Ireland.
I hope that I am not speaking out of turn in saying that I doubt whether the Commonwealth would be keen to exchange a negotiated scheme for the kind of liberal treatment which the citizens of countries in the Commonwealth are receiving under the Act and will receive even if it is to be tightened up in various ways. I say therefore with all sincerity, and I hope without introducing any party prejudice on the matter, that I hope that Her Majesty's Government will completely drop the idea of a negotiated scheme and, instead, will see what can be done, as indeed has been mentioned by the Home Secretary, to get better integration within this country and if necessary to tighten up the Act to prevent evasion.
9.45 p.m.
A word on the question of evasions. In last year's debate, on 27th November, the Prime Minister referred to "several loopholes in the Act", and he said:
We believe that health checks should become more effective."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 366.]
I should have liked to have seen more thorough health checks introduced as part of the administration under the Act. Many of my hon. Friends wanted that at the time. But it is easier said than done. People coming here with employment vouchers, of course, have a pretty thorough health check. On the other hand, the total number of passengers arriving here, including businessmen, students, tourists, families and others, coupled with the number of British passengers, aliens coming and


going, and so forth, is so large, about 6 million going through our ports in each direction each year, that the proportions of the problem are enormous. In comparison with that vast number of people passing through, the number of doctors is so small that, if one tried to intensify the health checks, one would create fantastic delays at the ports, and there would be chaos at London Airport, the principal port concerned. Therefore, I would not wish anyone to go with the Prime Minister in raising hopes about the general improvement of health checks.
Wives and children of Commonwealth immigrants are let in without health checks. This is so because we tried to be almost incredibly humane in this matter. But I agree with the Prime Minister that in that respect, perhaps, there could be an amendment of the Act.
There is so much more one could say on this issue. I conclude by making what, I hope, is a helpful suggestion to ease the problem of integration in the years ahead in respect of those who have not yet come to this country. Although I do not speak from personal experience, I understand that integration becomes almost impossible when the people concerned cannot even speak English, or, for that matter, Scots or Welsh. I believe that a knowledge of English should always be required before an employment voucher is granted. I hope that the Minister of Labour will deal with this point when he winds up the debate.
We should all be grateful for the spirit in which the debate has been conducted. It has been a great contrast to the debates we had on the Act, and I hope that we may keep up this spirit in the years to come.

Mr. Sorensen: It is appropriate that I should be able to speak tonight, for several reasons. One is that I am delighted to know that, for the past six hours, I have shared the salutary discipline of sitting on these green benches in company with the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Harvey), the Member for the constituency where I live. On this occasion, at least, we

have much in common. The second is that, throughout my Parliamentary life, I have been actively interested in all questions once known as colonial questions, and our discussions today, of course, are closely related thereto. Third, the constituency which I still have the honour to represent has been mentioned once or twice, and it has now some relationship in these matters with the constituency of Smethwick. For those and other reasons, I am grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution, at this late hour, to our debate on this most important issue.
I have been immensely impressed by maiden speeches coming from both sides of the Committee. I particularly appreciated the speech of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), and I earnestly hope that he will be able to give a similar speech, for instance, in the Labour Club at Smethwick as well as in other institutions in that area. Equally, I found a great deal in common with maiden speeches on this side of the Committee. All of us, I am sure, are heartened to realise that the new Members have given of their best in our discussions today. That, too, is encouraging because it helps us to realise that in some measure, though we have strong political convictions on both sides, there are on occasions opportunities to transcend them, and I most earnestly trust that we shall transcend our political differences in regard to the treatment of the present many components of our British stock.
The conflicts between differing communities are a projection of a very old problem, one as old as the human race itself. When clans and tribes developed in the early evolution of man, when man exfoliated into a variety of different cultures, languages and customs, inevitably there was a sense of conflict born of this diversity. One can understand why it exists—because fear is one of the ingredients of human nature—fear about the different, the unknown and the dissimilar. Although I agree that economic factors have been one of the causes of human conflict, I am certain also that these cultural and psychological factors have been just as operative. Just as in earlier days there was conflict between the rival tribes because one tribe was afraid of the different characteristics of another,


so I think that obtains also in this country at present. It is perfectly true that some of the immigrant communities in our midst have a culture very different from our own and, because of that, friction has arisen, and is likely still to arise unless something is done not merely by ourselves but by the immigrant communities also. Although we have our share of responsibility, I would certainly urge that the immigrant communities must also exercise their own obligations.
I remember going to a constituency near London where there is a large immigrant population. I spoke to about 600 Indians in a hall there. I felt rather uncomfortable, and at the end of my brief speech I turned to an Indian gentleman sitting beside me and asked whether I had said anything wrong. He said "No. It is all right, because probably 99 per cent. of the 600 people here did not understand a word you said." It astonished me on another occasion to find that an Indian association which was very active among the Indians in a certain district was actively promoting classes among them in Hindi—not English. I begged them to appreciate that unless that Indian immigrant community did its best to learn and understand English, it would bear some share for its sense of exclusiveness from the rest of the population.
Therefore, in confronting ourselves with the existence of diverse communities in this country, we should appreciate that it is no easy matter to secure the integration which all hon. Members desire. One of the difficulties in the past has been that too many have been ready to give way to emotional impulses without fully appreciating objectively and dispassionately the very real and complex problems before them. This emotionalism is to be found on both sides of the Committee. As far as I can tell, it may have been evident in a constituency to which I shall not refer again but which is familiar to us. It is so easy to exploit emotionally the differences between the immigrant population and the indigenous population. It is so easy to assume that, because the other man has a dark skin and a different culture, this therefore denotes a certain intrinsic inferiority and must be despised. By this means one can evoke applause and support and gain a cheap kind of notoriety. I admit that it is easy. But

it is emotional. Many people assume that the only emotion is that of affection, but the emotion of hate is far more dangerous.
We must realise that emotion in some areas has undoubtedly exacerbated a stupid, racial approach. Some hon. Members on this side of the Committee, with the very best intentions, at one time insufficiently appreciated that we were faced with certain difficulties that needed objective judgment rather than emotional generality. That was why I was glad to hear my right hon. and learned Friend say that the Act will continue. In doing so, he has recognised the necessity of its substance.
At the same time I would say to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) that when he is so critical of the opposition of the Labour Party to the Act when it was introduced, he fails to appreciate that many right hon. and hon. Members on his own side were also critical and for very good reasons. The Act was so strenuously opposed because, basically, it was assumed, rightly or wrongly, that there was a measure of colour prejudice in it, since far more interest seemed to be shown in the intention to stop coloured immigration than the so-called white immigration.

Mr. Renton: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the operation of the Act has entirely dispelled any erroneous impression there may have been about our intentions at the time? The Home Secretary has given the figures—a net increase of 120, 000 from the new countries out of the total overall net increase of 138, 000 from the Commonwealth.

Mr. Sorensen: I do not want to be controversial this evening for various reasons. Others may be: there is evidence of their capacity to do so. I am trying to say that my own side in some measure failed to make its own position clear enough at the time. It may be said that what has happened since has dispelled some of the impressions we had. On the other hand, I am not quite so sure on that score, because while there has been a certain restriction of so-called coloured immigration into the country there is still a continuous and considerable flow of European immigration—to which I do not necessarily object and


of which no proper calculation, for reasons known to us all, can be made.
I say that I do not necessarily object to all immigration because we owe a tremendous debt to immigrants, both coloured and white. For instance, there are the nurses to whom I would pay tribute—particularly those in Whipp's Cross Hospital in my constituency. I understand that 95 per cent. of its nurses come from Ireland. Without Irish and coloured nurses, between one quarter and one-third of our hospital beds would have to be closed.
We owe a great debt to immigrants, and I will not try to set one type against another, but at the time this Act was passed there was an assumption of a certain bias against coloured immigrants. For instance, in Smethwick and areas of that kind one found more exploitation of prejudice against coloured people than against the Irish. Hon. Members must appreciate why it was that so many of us felt so strongly at the time. Moreover, we were not wholly satisfied that everything had been done to secure the consultation and agreement of the Commonwealth countries. All I would say now is that, having made our criticism and given our advice, surely we must now look to the future because so much depends on how we handle this question in the years ahead. I hope most earnestly that it will not become a party issue. There are sufficient hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to appreciate why I say so. If this were to become a party question, there would be grave world repercussions in the years ahead. Both parties have to play their part in this. Coming to the House today—

It being Ten o'clock. The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered, 
That the Proceedings on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed. —[Mr. Edward Short.]

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed,  That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule.

Mr. Sorensen: I was saying that coming to the House today I passed, as I frequently do, a wall near Leytonstone Station. I saw there inscribed in large letters the cryptic initials K.B.W. We know what they mean—Keep Britain White. Underneath there was the inscription of an organisation known as the British National Party. We also understand that in what might be an exciting political episode in the New Year another organisation intends to put up a candidate who stands for the same principle of "keeping Britain white".
By this cryptic inscription was a new symbol, no longer the circle with the lightning flash within it, but a circle with a cross within it. I thought how incongruous it was that this organisation should be scribbling K.B.W. on the wall and at the same time using the symbol of a faith founded by an Asian whose skin was swarthy and who, if lie had been in this country, would not have been allowed to go into Smethwick Labour Club.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there are all sorts of crank societies in this country and that in my own constituency we have a society which objects to the immigration of the English into Cornwall?

Mr. Sorensen: I appreciate that, and I hope that these will be crank societies and dismissed as such by all worthy people, but unfortunately, that is what was once thought in Germany of a crank organisation there. What at one time was dismissed as a mere freak became in the end the evil despotism of that country and brought ruin to the world. That is what I am frightened of, because unfortunately the human mind can be conditioned and moulded, for good or ill.
From the most cursory and amateur study of anthropology, we know how the human mind can be moulded. We have all heard of Margaret Mead and


her interesting researches into the same ethnic peoples living in two islands not far apart. Although the two were of ethnic similarity, one community became aggressive and the other pacific. They were moulded by a variety of factors in the same way that in one part of our country our people became colour prejudiced while in other areas, as in my constituency, such prejudice hardly exists.
It is because of the possibility of these cranks and freaks moulding emotionally conditioning the human mind in sinister ways that when I saw those letters I first felt anger that anyone could come to that pleasant kindly constituency which I have had the honour to represent for 32 years and proclaim such views. Leyton has its difficulties and its oddities like every constituency, but, after 37 years association with it and 32 years representing it in the House of Commons, I felt anger that this decent, kindly community should have this poison injected into it. Who is to say that the same poison will not maliciously he injected into the veins of our common humanity elsewhere?
I speak thus because I feel deeply, and because I do not want Leyton or any other constituency to be thus poisoned. I am only too well aware that it can happen. When I went around during the last election one or two people here and there showed some colour prejudice. I tried to understand their prejudice. I tried to explain my position and to get them to transcend that automtic reaction which I appreciate many people have at the mere sight of a coloured face. Sometimes people are so conditioned that they automatically react in that way.
After my anger I then realised that anger would get me nowhere. What I felt can best be summed up in some words taken from Shakespeare's Othello, which in this case are particularly appropriate:
…the pity of it, Iago!
O Iago, the pity of it.
If we can have that pity for those who try to debase the human mind, then surely decent men and women of good will here and elsewhere, even though they may still differ about how to deal with particular problems, will join together to eradicate any danger of this evil gaining strength in our midst and will encourage

every effort to be made to build up a British community which will vindicate our democracy.
It is a hard task, I admit, but it can be done and, for this reason, I plead that we should accept the diversity in our community, and recognise the problems of race relationship but at the same time do all we can to draw these mixed peoples into true fellowship so that our British democracy can be an inspiring example to the whole world.

Mr. John Harvey: Many references have been made to the necessity for good will, and…we all feel the desire to face up to the problem in that spirit. But we must all realise it is not merely a question of good will but a question of the need for good thought as well."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1929; Vol. 230, c. 366.]
I have chosen those words to begin my remarks for a reason. They fit the debate exceedingly well, but I wonder whether the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) recognises them, because they were the words with which, 35 years ago—not 32, as he said—he began his own maiden speech in the House of Commons.
It was when I realised that it might be possible for me to speak in the Committee following my distinguished constituent, the hon. Member for Leyton, that I looked up his maiden speech and found those appropriate words, appropriate to the opening of my speech tonight but also representing the opening of his own Parliamentary career.
If this is, as has been rumoured, the last time we are likely to hear the hon. Member for Leyton speak in the House of Commons the more is the pity because, knowing him as I do and knowing his constituency almost as well as I know my own, it is fitting that I should say that he has been an excellent constituency Member. He has been a very sincere, well respected and even well loved constituency Member and whoever the party opposite may choose to succeed him will have to be a very good man to be as good a constituency Member as is the present hon. Member for Leyton.
Having said that, and returning to the theme of the need for good thought in the difficult problem facing the Committee—and without wishing to stir anything up—I must say that the thing I tend a little to resent is that so many hon. Members opposite seem to claim a


monopoly of virtue for themselves when they approach this subject, whereas the truth is that there is as much muddled thinking and, possibly, even as much malice among supporters of the party opposite on this subject as among any supporters of my party. It is very much more muddled thinking than malice, very much a question of lack of understanding. But this is not a subject on which anyone in this Committee can afford to start throwing stones.
The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) quoted from one or two newspapers; and I should like therefore to quote from a recent article in the Daily Telegraph,  not to make a party political point, but to emphasise the point to which I shall come in a moment. There is a need to rid ourselves of this tendency to want to score points off one another. There is a need to face the problem and a need for clear thought.
The article in the Daily Telegraph states:
Mr. Fred Bullion, deputy-mayor of Deptford and a life-long 'bread-and-butter Labour man', spoke for a large and growing body of opinion in districts like his when he complained that many of the gains working people had made during a lifetime of struggle and progress were being wiped out or threatened by a few years of Commonwealth immigration. I've been called a Fascist for speaking out', he said but how can it be "prejudiced" or "reactionary" to defend what we have always fought for? Is it "progressive" to let the workers in Deptford be dragged back to conditions we've only just managed to struggle out of?'".
This is the Labour deputy mayor of Deptford.
The hon. Member for Barons Court talked of the things which canvassers report and which he sought to attribute to my party. I could tell canvassers' tales which have come back to me about the way this matter was tackled by people who do not support my party. But where do we get, when all is said and done, if we start throwing stones across the Chamber and trying to score party political points on an issue which must be set aside from the party political controversy if we are to do what has to be done, namely, to avoid the creation of a racial problem, to avoid exacerbation of the sort reported from Deptford—in fact, to be able to assimilate the immigrants already here?
I have no illusions, speaking for my sort of constituency in the Greater London area, that at rock bottom housing is the problem. The housing problem is a very much more difficult and intractable one in Greater London than anywhere else in the country. Of this there is no possible doubt. This is a separate subject which, in a sense, we shall have an opportunity to debate tomorrow. But I am convinced that unless and until local authorities are both able and willing to take action in housing, the problem will grow worse.
In some cases local authorities simply dare not send a health inspector or sanitary inspector to look at a house of which complaint is made because they know very well that if they do they will have to close it and rehouse the very large numbers of people in it—often far more than appear on the register of electors—ahead of other people on their waiting lists.
Therefore, we must, first and foremost, face the fact that something special in housing needs to be done to get this problem under control and to make it possible for these people who have come to live among us to be assimilated and to prevent any possibility of racial distrust and discrimination arising here on a large scale. It tends to exist already, and it worries the white population and the coloured population equally. It worries all those who want to see the end of race prejudice as such rearing its head. It worries all those who want to see assimilation.
10.15 p.m.
I believe, therefore, that the Government have a duty to look specially into the problems that exist and to consider how far these problems can be dealt with, tackled and eliminated. We were told by the Home Secretary this afternoon that it is proposed to try for the time being to go on limiting new immigration to the 1, 500 or 2, 000 permit holders a month. Fifteen hundred to 2, 000 permit holders a month, by the time their relatives and their immediate dependants have come too, could mean something like 8, 000 people a month, or getting on for 100, 000 people a year—all this before we have properly assimilated, or even begun properly to assimilate, those who are already here.
It is high time that this problem was examined in the interests of the coloured people themselves. We have heard much about humanitarianism. Is it humanitarian to invite still more to come here to live in the squalid sort of conditions that a good many of us know and have seen to exist and are powerless as yet to do anything about? In the end, there is no room for party political controversy, because the provision of new housing has not exactly been one of the failures of the last few years. [Horn. MEMBERS: "0h."]Hon. Members opposite who say "Oh" had better remember that the right hon. Gentleman who is now Prime Minister accused us of tricking and deceiving the nation when we said that we would build 300, 000 houses a year.

Mr. Manuel: That was a long time ago.

Mr. Harvey: Yes, and we have achieved it year in and year out throughout that period. Now that both parties are agreed that we can move up to 400, 000 houses a year as from next year, we must deliberately face seeking to make part of that extra provision available for the most needy cases in some of the conurbations around our big cities where the relief of the overcrowded houses in

which immigrants live is a vital number one priority.
I urge the Government to look carefully again at the proposed inflow of immigration, beause 1, 500 to 2, 000 permit holders said quickly does not sound too much but 100, 000 more people coming in every year while we have not yet adequately begun to tackle the problem that already exists could add alarmingly to the social consequences of the problem that is already of great concern to very many of us.
This, surely, cannot be made a matter for controversy. It is of fundamental importance to the humanitarian treatment of all those who would like to come here that they should be able to come and live decent lives settling into decent homes. Before we have any further large expansion of immigration, it is vital that the Government should be satisfied that we are well on the way adequately to housing immigrants already here and that we shall be able thereafter virtually to attach the necessary accommodation to the work permit and to regard the two as indispensable the one to the other.
That is all I want to say tonight, because to my mind the crux of the whole problem is to get the housing straight and the other things will straighten themselves out in due course.

Mr. Parkin: In spite of all the dangers, tensions, conflicts of ideas, this has been one of the most remarkable debates I have ever sat through here, and it is a great pleasure to be called in it, even at this late hour. I think that most of us will agree that a great deal of the credit for the quality of the new ideas which have been brought out in this debate is due to the maiden speakers who have taken part in it, and that at least should make us confident that, whether we have had proper debates on this subject here before or not, many other people throughout the country have been thinking, acting, working out various devices, and are ready to present constuctive ideas. There is little time to lose.
I suppose we have all had our moments of impatience during this debate. Mine came in the course of the Home Secretary's speech when he was going through those statistics and lost 30, 000 students and said that it was a matter for conjecture where they had gone. There had been a leakage. I wanted to interrupt him. I could have told him where three of them had gone, because I have had this day a message that they have not heard from the Church Commissioners.
The Church Commissioners of England have this day evicted from a flat in my constituency two African students and their families, and this was in reply to a plea from me that they should reverse a decision not to give two more days to the solicitors of the leaseholders who were being attacked by the Church Commissioners. This is an example of the cold way and the ruthlessness with which fastidious priests have always called in the secular arm to do their dirty work for them. This has been put into the legal pipeline, and nothing can stop it. This was an order to take over a leasehold unless the leaseholder evicted those who were in breach of a covenant because more than one family were in the flat.
Tonight I do not know where those boys are. I asked them to wait. The Division Bell rang and I said, "I will have to go through a Division and make a telephone call, but I will come back and tell you." They did not think I could help them. And I could not. But I did ask, I pleaded with, whatever contact I could make with the Church Commissioners that a message should be sent

to the solicitors tonight to give them two more days or a few more days to get the flat they were already negotiating about.
This is the kind of damage that can be done by an incident of this kind. What is happening to those students? One cannot be sure they will find another flat. They will be part of this leakage. They are going to be lost. What kind of white man's justice do they think it will be? How are they to be absorbed? There is no one to whom they can go for advice. I know where they will turn up. They will turn up in a file in the Home Office sooner or later. Or others like them will. There are places where one could look.
The situation really is this. There are plenty of ideas, plenty of debaters, but not enough involvement of the general public in practical work which can bring about the fulfilment of the best of those ideas.
I want to say one thing on the issue of principle now, and then make some detailed suggestions. There is one thing I want to ask tonight, and I want to be controversial and I shall be really controversial. We have got through the debate pretty well. We had the obstacles. First of all we had the confusion of description about the use of electoral devices; we had the danger of the inflamed feelings about recollections of the election—as though this was the first time a certain political party had adopted that kind of electioneering. We know it was not, and we know it will happen again, and we ought not to spend a long time about it.
What interested me very much about the speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones)—and there was a great deal in that speech I wished I had the chance to say myself first—was that the right hon. Member was looking at this problem not from the point of view of electoral advantage but from the point of view of economic advantage. I do not want to say this in a heated way but, on the whole, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) said so incisively during the debate last year, the Conservative Party has thought of this question of coloured immigration in electoral terms and not in practical terms.


They have missed a great opportunity, because, if they had stuck to the rules of capitalist economics, they would have welcomed all the cheap immigrant labour they could get.
Uncontrolled and badly housed immigrants put an intolerable burden on the shoulders of their fellow workers in some areas, but from the point of view of the success of the economy, one has only to look at what has happened in Germany and in France to know that if we had an opportunity of getting 100, 000 skilled or even unskilled building workers into this country we ought to take them, because in a year they will have created the equivalent of the housing they are going to occupy. The party opposite did not choose to do that.
There is one example which I want to take, and which everyone refers to with immense respect. It is customary to refer to what has happened in the hospitals, and on London Transport. I wonder whether, 10 years from now, people will not look back at the agreement that we have for recruitment in Barbados and say, "This was the wickedest thing that we did". That will be said when all the freak Fascist ideas, all the prejudices, and all the Rachmans have been forgotten. We did this in cold blood and with the best intentions.
I do not know on whom I can call for support. Perhaps I can call on one of the older and wiser members of the Cabinet, the Secretary of State for Wales, when I say to the Cabinet that the wickedest thing we can do to a country is what we have done to Barbados. We have taken the young, the active, and the most enterprising. What will Barbados get in return? In a few years' time, a steady flow of elderly, experienced tube train drivers. This is a dreadful thing to do to a country. This is what we did to Wales during the depression. We took away the best and left behind the sick and the defeated, to the impoverishment of the country. This is not aid. This is not help. This is taking everything and giving nothing in return.
What do we get for ourselves? We get the guarantee of an endless flow of expendable cheap labour, as a result of which we have not got the right stimulus to proper technological advance in our public services parallel to the

kind of technological advance that we get in private industry. We have not got the stimulus to improve our public transport services. I have every sympathy with the man who says that he will not come a long way from Rickmansworth to service a bad winter schedule. We are supposed to put up with a worse schedule in winter than in the summer. In the winter one has to use public transport, whereas in the summer one can walk.
I am sure that much the same sort of thing happened a hundred years ago when houses were being built in my constituency. The builders said, "Why waste time on taking lead pipe further than the first-floor landing when there is an unlimited supply of little girls from the unemployment areas to carry the slops up and down the stairs?". Only when that sort of supply was giving out did people look at the houses and say, "My God, there must be a better way of living than this".
10.30 p.m.
The first thing that I should like the Government to do is to take a long, hard look at the type of agreement to which I have referred, to see whether in the long run it is not doing the maximum harm to both sides. I think that we ought to start afresh. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been defending their Act. I did not think that tonight we would have any difficulty, because the other night I put a few points to the Financial Secretary on the Money Resolution. He brushed them aside and said that the points I had raised were not covered by the Bill.
So I put down an Amendment, and there is only one form of words that is appropriate. I found myself in strange company. Hon. Members opposite are opposed to the Act; I am opposed to it, and the Government are opposed to it. We all say that it will not work. The Financial Secretary says that my ideas cannot be implemented, but we all want a better Act. I am certain that the electors wanted one, and the assumption was that the Labour Government would improve it.
Throughout the debate far too much emphasis has been placed on the idea that this was some sort of kindness that we were doing to these suffering people from


the poorer countries, in handing out chits to enable them to come in in stages to take jobs. Warnings have been given from hon. Members opposite as to how difficult it is to consult other Commonwealth countries. First, let us hear what we are to consult about. We have not yet heard that from any Government. I want to hear it before the debate is over.
We have a fairly good case. The party opposite has had a few years to work this out and it has not thought of anything to consult about. I would have thought that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development was involved up to the neck in this, and I am sorry that in the list of her functions she did not include some kind of liaison with those who will operate the control on immigrants into this country. I would have thought it inevitable that if we are going to send material aid we can use the device of offering training to the people from the countries where the aid is going—training in the sort of work they will need to be able to do when they go back.
It is not tube lines which are preponderant in Barbados, but there is one tool that is essential in every underdeveloped country throughout the world, and that is the earth-moving machine. If a man can drive one of those giant grabs which walk about raising hundreds of tons of earth he can have a job anywhere in the under-developed countries. But it is the trained mechanics from this country who go overseas and earn enormous salaries.
The training of such people would be a positive contribution to the solution of the problem. That is why I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the other night to indicate whether the Money Resolution in connection with this Measure would cover the possibility of an ad hoc expansion of the administration of many Ministries in this Government to meet the needs of immigrants We have not had from the Government any explanation of the problems of giving grants to local authorities in need, but I hope that we are all agreed that we are against the conception of segregated second-class citizens in second-class dwellings, doing second-class jobs. That is not what grants to local authorities are supposed to be for.
But there are many other things that local authorities can do, in co-operation with other Ministries, such as the Ministry of Education, and there is an enormous amount that the Ministry of Labour can do. I am grateful for having been called before my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has spoken. I believe that the device which once existed is still operable. When Ernest Bevin was at the Ministry of Labour he was working on a scheme for sending out labour attachés in parallel with the diplomatic attachés, so that we could have contact between the labour movement and the industrial movement. These were people who were seconded voluntarily to the Ministry.
In due course, the jobs they did have been filled by civil servants, who have got promotion. I wonder if it is still open for outside people to be recruited to fill these jobs. If so, could we have tomorrow a labour attaché sent to every Commonwealth country and Colony, to consult about the kind of consumer goods industry that is required to be developed on those countries, and the kind of commercial and industrial training that is required for their workers, so that some of their immigrants here could go back enriched in the skills and experience required in their home countries? This is a dream, but it could come true, if we set out to make it come true. Can my right hon. Friend do it tomorrow, or have we to wait until a Supplementary Estimate is introduced or until it is tacked into next year's Estimates?
My right hon. Friend can do many things. There is a simple thing which we need to do to get over the problem of the plumber or the carpenter with a chip on his shoulder who is sure that the foreman will not take him on or, having taken him on, will sack him because he is a coloured man. If he has served an apprenticeship in a country where the techniques are different, the foreman will not take him on if he can help it because he knows that he will need instruction in slightly different techniques. Why not use the same device as that now used for the rehabilitation of the disabled and give him a six to eight weeks' course so that he can use a union card which would show that he had the qualifications? This was the


question which I was asked by a coloured man at an election meeting, and hardly anybody knew what he was talking about. He said, "We have been asked to vote Labour and most of us will. Is there any chance of doing the job for which we are qualified?"
There is urgency about this matter. It will not wait until next year. If the Minister of Overseas Development had been able to turn right instead of left from the well-trodden path between Hampstead and South Africa House she would have come to Paddington where another apartheid is to be fought. We shall have segregated school classes within a year or two. There are already classes with only two or three white children who will be removed by their parents soon. There are secondary modern schoolchildren now whose mothers are worried because their daughters are bringing home coloured students. Let me tell the Committee why they are worried. I wonder whether it will be only the older miner colleagues of mine on this side of the Committee who will understand this point. I remember how when I was aged six my grandmother took me into the front parlour and made me promise not to go down a coalmine while site was alive. I remember the fight to keep out of certain occupations.
In the present-day mothers who worry, there is no panic. There is no prejudice. There is no nonsense about maniacs from the jungle. These coloured students are charming, delightful boys who are doing well at school, getting diplomas for shorthand, typing and accounting—and they are not going to obtain jobs. Whatever success they may have at school, they will be sorting out scrap iron.
They will be doing the menial jobs which ought not to be done by any human being, jobs which we should be struggling to remove from our cities altogether. This is what strikes the mothers. There is no moral problem. There is no problem of disciplining children. If the coloured boy is a bad character. out he goes. It is when he is a charming character that he is a danger. The good healthy collier was a danger to the house. A weedy assistant in a shop in a mining village would be a "chance." The daughter of the house would be marrying someone who would

not be going through the routine of accident, disease, the "compo" doctor and the rest. We have learned a lot. Certainly the Labour movement has learned a great deal.
Why do not we apply what we have learned? I know that I have said too much and I apologise, but if I had been able to say all I had wanted to say tonight, and if I had been able to pour out all my ideas and the Government had said, "Right, we will implement the lot", what would my constituents have said?—" Are you going to do all that for the 'spades'? Why not do it for us? ". This is the nub of it. This is why hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite could not do it, and why they have never been able to do it in the past. They have always regarded unskilled workers as expendable.
I cannot improve on the crack made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) about Scotsmen wearing kilts. If we had been able to identify the children of unskilled workers, if dustmen were made baronets—they ought to be for the work they do, if there were any sense of justice—and if we could have recognised their descendants, we could have seen the weaknesses of the Welfare State. We should have seen the problem at the root of our education system. We could have seen the wastage, on the one hand, and, on the other, the way those who learned the book of rules of the acquisitive affluent society made a success of their affairs. We could have seen the heartbreaks and the waste, the little children pushed out from the wrong stream in the primary school into the wrong stream in the secondary school, the children who fill the juvenile courts, the approved schools, the borstals, the clubs where they eat "purple hearts", and the rest. This is part of the failure of the social system which right hon. and hon. Members have created.
Only if we look at the issue in those terms, at the way in which we have used expendable immigrant unemployed labour from all sources in the working of our cities for tens and hundreds of years, only if we draw on the experience of the past which the working class has accumulated, shall we find a right solution to the problem which is now troubling us. But it calls for a great


administrative drive, a drive which we are beginning to associate with this Government. Some of us have had some very agreeable surprises from some very unlikely Ministers. [Laughter.] It is true. We have all had some most encouraging experiences of the drive of this Government. We want some on this subject now. It is something which they have overlooked. They have not taken the opportunity yet to tell us what they have in mind. The Minister of Labour is to reply. I hope that he will give us the right answer.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I hope that the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) will acquit me of extreme rudeness if I do not follow every point which he made in his speech. He asked one question which I thought very pertinent. He asked whether we were doing the right thing towards those who emigrated to this country by withdrawing them from their own countries, thereby drawing off the cream from their homelands. At the time when the Act was going through the House I was in Jamaica, and I took part in a television interview with people in the Government there. I do not want to go over all the controversies of the Bill's introduction. I make no bones about saying that I was myself violently opposed to it at the time. I was opposed to its method of introduction, and it is still an Act which I very much dislike. We are now discussing whether we should re-enact it, and, if we do, what we should like to see replace it, if possible, for the future.
I remember the Premier of Jamaica, Sir Norman Manley, as he then was, saying: "We do not like exporting our young people and our skilled technicians, but we have to do it. We have to export hundreds and hundreds of our people every year because there is no work for them. We cannot support them." He explained also that the money which they sent back from the countries to which they emigrated was a valuable contribution towards the stability of Jamaica's economy. We must face these facts. I hope that those in the country who are critical of people who come here from overseas will remember that they do not want to leave their homes.
10.45 p.m.
What a terrible tragedy it is when one sees at Kingston airport the Jamaicans in their thin clothes, happy, carefree, queuing up for their charter planes to go to London. Then, suddenly, they get the cruel realisation of the cold and fog, and the full blast of the colour bar if they are unfortunate enough to live in those areas where certain people use the colour bar for personal advantage. These people do not want to come here. Let us remember that many of them come here because we as a great imperial Power failed in many parts of the Commonwealth and Empire to leave the people with a decent standard of living.
One realises that if one sees the shacks in parts of Nigeria and some of the conditions in which people live in Malawi. Although we have done much, if we go round the Commonwealth we cannot claim that we have done as much as we should have done to leave the people with a decent standard of living. That is why the people come to this country. That is why we have an obligation to help them to get employment and earn their daily bread and send money back to their families.
The reason why many of us were opposed to the Bill was that it was introduced without Commonwealth consultation. At least two Commonwealth Prime Ministers first read of its introduction in the daily newspapers. That was the extent of the consultation, and that was one of the reasons for the bitterness created at the time of the Bill's introduction.
The Home Secretary did a tremendous service in his speech because he put the whole subject in its proper perspective. He told us the percentage of those coming in on A or B category vouchers —that is, those who had jobs to come to, thereby meeting an economic need, and those who had special skills which were required, again thereby meeting an economic need—and the fact that there were very few immigrants in category C indicated that the immigration authorities, for better or for worse, had not allowed people in to contribute to the general pool of unskilled labour but had concentrated on the skilled and those crafts which could not be serviced in this country. So let us remember that


these people have performed a very great economic service to this country.
Probably the perspective in which the Home Secretary was able to place the whole subject can best be perpetuated by passing over, and perhaps ignoring, the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise), which I do not think was a particularly valuable contribution to the discussion. I should prefer to rely on speeches such as that of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the other maiden speeches that we heard, which have been marked by wide humanity.
I should like to make one or two suggestions. First, an hon. Member asked what we mean by "consultation", and for what purposes should we consult. I feel that this is not a proper subject for discussions at a Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference. It would be passed over. I suggest that very careful attention should be given to having a special Commonwealth conference on migration and that those attending it should be the Ministers from the Commonwealth countries who have particular responsibility for these problems. There are a tremendous number of subjects winch could, and should, usefully be discussed. For example, yesterday we read that the Australians are hoping to attract 70, 000 migrants a year from this country, which would be about 15, 000 more than they attracted in 1963.
There are many aspects upon which we could try to build up a volume of Commonwealth agreement on migration. There are many ways in which we could try and lessen the shocks people sustain when they come to this country if we could get consultation and some form of working partnership which would continue after the conference concluded.
The second point—and here I agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones)—is that there should be a Minister primarily responsible for immigration matters. As he rightly said, many Ministries are affected—Housing, Labour, Education and Health. There should be one Minister, possibly loosely attached to the Commonwealth Relations Office, in charge of immigration matters. I am

not necessarily suggesting that another Ministry be created. I am hoping that out of the wide ambit available to the Prime Minister somebody in the Government could be given an additional responsibility.
The next thing I hope we may be able to hear is something of the results of the Home Office Advisory Committee, which is doing very useful work. Perhaps the Minister of Labour could say something about that. But it seems to me that this is all in one direction. What we also have to do in this country is to concentrate—it sounds a priggish thing to say but it is true—on educating our own people in racial matters, because half the problem is not so much the volume of immigrants but the fear of the unknown that people have, the lack of understanding.
So often, if someone is introduced into a person's home in a large town, he can in that way get to know people and can become far more easily integrated in our society. We have very much more to do in this country if we are to approach the tremendous research carried out in the United States, where this problem is so very much greater, with 22 million negroes. There, in the process of integration, there is research into what is worrying people.
I agree with the hon. Member for Paddington, North in wishing that we had some extended form of labour information at our High Commission offices in Commonwealth countries. I do not know how many such attachés there are, but I know that in Jamaica, if a person wants to inquire into employment prospects in this country, he has great difficulty in getting the information. We should consider giving a member of the High Commission staff in each Commonwealth country from which immigrants come responsibility for giving information along these lines.
I believe that we must, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford said, realise that the greatest test which faces this country and, indeed, the world is whether we can create a multi-racial society. Certainly, in the Caribbean, there are countries where one can say that there is virtually no feeling of colour, that there really is a partnership between the races. That is something we experimented with in Central Africa, where it failed because


it was all one way; it was all the maintenance of the established order and no give. In the Caribbean one can say that there have been attempts at partnership which have been tremendously successful. One sees people of all races mingling, and that is something we must tackle here.
The Prime Minister was so right when he said last night that we must not blame upon immigrants social problems such as housing and bad conditions which existed before they came and which would be with us whether or not they were here. They are not a very large percentage of the population and certainly it is the job of hon. Members—one would hope that one could say, with confidence, of all hon. Members of every political party—to kill all these arguments based on prejudice, arguments relating to high unemployment, high crime ratios and so forth.
If every hon. Member were to try individually to destroy this sort of argument which, as the hon. Member for Chelmsford has said, Home Secretary after Home Secretary has denied, then hon. Members at least would be playing some part in lowering tension and trying to build up a multi-racial society in this country. I hope, therefore, that the Minister of Labour will tell us tonight something about labour attaches in the High Commission offices, the Home Office Advisory Committee and the prospects of a Commonwealth agreement.
I still loathe this Act and I hope the time will come when we can build up some form of agreement common to all countries in the Commonwealth. I believe that until we can do that, can abolish this Act and put in its place some form of Commonwealth agreement we cannot claim that we have solved the problem of creating a multi-racial community. The sooner we can scrub this Act off the Statute Book the better it will be for Commonwealth relations in this country.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: I hope not to detain the Committee too long tonight, but as my constituency was the only one during the election which was dishonoured by having a Fascist candidate I can speak with some feeling on the problem. When one considers that

in these enlightened days a person of that kind can seek election to Parliament, whose only election programme was "Keep Britain White" and who collected some 3, 400 votes, one appreciates that there are some serious aspects of the problem.
In my constituency, therefore, we are concerned about the problems being created by this policy of "Keep Britain White". My Conservative opponent in the constituency wanted to show that the whole of the problem was due to the Labour council. It was nothing to do with the people here, but was the result of the action of the Labour council. These things tend to obscure the difficulties with which we are faced.
I am quite satisfied that a good deal of the problem stems from the failure of the Government for about 10 years to recognise what was the essence, first of all, of the basic problem with which we were faced. The first basic problem is that there are no means at all for the proper reception of Commonwealth immigrants. This led to their concentration in different areas where, very naturally, not speaking the language in many cases, they tended to congregate together. They wanted to be where there was a friendly voice to greet them.
Therefore, because we had no established means of dealing with them, this concentration always snowballed. I hope that we shall be told tonight that there is to be some form of reception and that immigrants should not go wholly into overcrowded houses and overcrowded areas where the next step will be that if a house is in multi-occupation the council will serve a notice on the occupants to vacate and they will then into another overcrowded house, and so on. This is a vicious circle which I think the Government will have to tackle right at the beginning so that we can control and deal with the problem from the point of view of a proper diversification of these immigrants when they arrive in this country, not with the idea of creating second-class citizens but in order to give them a better chance of being first-class citizens.
That is something to which we must have regard for the future. I welcome the idea and hope that we might hear something from my right hon. Friend tonight about how negotiations are to be


started with the Commonwealth countries in order to find some method of consultation leading to agreement concerning the numbers that come in. I would say that the control of the numbers who come into the country, from wherever they come, is something which is here to stay, at least for a long time to come. The important thing is to get away from the implication of colour and to put the legislation on to a logical basis of what the economy of the country can stand in the way of numbers coming into it, wherever they come from—India, Pakistan, Jamaica or Ireland.
11.0 p.m.
We have heard about the difficulties of doing anything about the Irish because of the 1948 Nationality Act in connection with the Irish Republic. That is sheer nonsense, because people in Commonwealth countries had the right to come here without any Act of Parliament, but that did not prevent the then Government from bringing in an Act to stop them. It is sheer hypocrisy to plead that nothing can be done about Ireland, but this problem cannot be tackled without dealing with Northern Ireland in some way to prevent the inflow through that channel.
In spite of what has been said about the Act not being colour discrimination, hon. Members will recollect that the Home Secretary at the time admitted that while the Act was not intended to be seen in that way, it could not be used to prevent people from coming from Southern Ireland. We hear a good deal about people coming and going from and to Southern Ireland. I wonder whether hon. Members are aware of the reason. Large numbers of people come here from Ireland and travel around from job to job and then, as soon as the Inland Revenue catches up with them, they go back for a few months and then return to start all over again. This is something which the Inland Revenue might look at, for it might do more about controlling immigration from Ireland than is now done.

Mr. Wise: Has the hon. Gentleman not heard of P.A.Y.E.? That is tax deducted at source.

Mr. Pargiter: The hon. Gentleman should learn the facts of life and about

how long it takes P.A.Y.E. to catch up with a man.
A stranger coming to the House of Commons today and hearing the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) moving his Amendment and knowing nothing of our politics might have wondered what the Labour Government has been doing for the last 10 years. We now have to deal with factors which are certainly not of our own creation and which have nothing to do with whether we were in favour of or opposed to the Act at its inception.
This may be a matter for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, but the control of multiple-occupied housing needs a good deal of strengthening if it is to be properly operative without being harsh on the occupants.
Another matter which cannot be ignored is the need for a man who has come from the Commonwealth to be able to send for his family. Usually he does not wish to bring his family with him, but if he is permitted to come here, he should be able to send for his family later. We ought to be able to know what our liabilities would be in this respect, especially as nine times out of ten the family would be moving into already overcrowded areas, thus creating still more problems. This is where consultation with the Commonwealth would be useful. If these things could be done by agreement, the local knowledge which the country of origin could supply would be very helpful.
The problem of category B entrants is important. There are many disgruntled immigrants who came here on the basis of having special skills, or what were regarded as special educational qualifications. They sometimes found that those qualifications did not match the equivalent standards in this country, so that they were unable to get the sort of job which they thought they would get. They have then begun to think that this was some form of racial discrimination, even though it was nothing of the kind. That is why more should be done about people in these categories, either training them to the standards which they thought they had reached, or advising them of the standards they have and what sort of job they can expect in this country as a result.
The subject of education has been mentioned in connection with the increasing number of immigrant children. The education authority in my constituency was faced with problems in this connection and I would like to express my thanks to the former Minister of Education for the way he helped my local education authority to tackle the problem. It was tackled not on the basis of sitting back and allowing the children to gather in a certain area but by transporting them, by various means of transport, to other schools. By the simple process of having reception classes when the immigrant children were taken first to school to learn the rudiments of the English language and then into the ordinary classes where they were soon absorbed into the normal life of the school.
In my constituency, therefore, we do not have this danger of the standard of education being lowered, although I admit that some parents still believe that it is being lowered. What happened in my area shows what can be done when a local education authority and a Government Department co-operate. Nevertheless, perhaps this problem was more easily solved than the problem of overcrowding, which still very much faces us.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) spoke of the need for co-ordinating machinery to help solve some of these problems. Had he added his voice to mine a year ago, when I suggested that there should be an inter-Departmental committee to co-ordinate work on these issues between the various Ministries, the suggestion I made then might have received more support. As it was, although a year ago I suggested means to co-ordinate Ministerial advice to local authorities, the right hon. Member for Hall Green agreed with those who suggested that everybody was perfectly well satisfied. Local authorities, including mine, have problems and are in need of the help that has been promised. I am not referring to assistance in the form of additional block grants and so on, but specialist help to achieve a greater degree of integration.
It should be realised that problems exist on both sides. It is not merely a question of there being a desire on our part to integrate coloured immigrants, for we are steadily reaching the point—it

will happen if we are not careful—when they will begin to turn inwards, so to speak, and not be readily willing to accept integration. The longer this process goes on the worse the problem will get.
I am not sure what answer will be found to the problem of creating more living space in already overcrowded areas. Whatever is done, in certain areas the Government should make special efforts to provide accommodation in addition to that being provided by local authority housing programmes. Frankly, when I think of the people I know who are living in overcrowded conditions and who have been on the local housing list for upwards of 10 years, if someone such as a coloured immigrant took precedence over them on the list there would be a riot. I say this to prove that by some means the solution to this problem must be taken beyond the boundary of local authority housing arrangements. The Government must do something to make special housing provision for immigrants so that we can start the process of integration.
I have addressed the Committee for longer than I had anticipated. This is because I am extremely concerned to see these problems resolved. I hope that when the Act comes up for renewal next time—if, indeed, it still exists—it will have been modified in such a way that we can get on with the problem of integrating immigrants, giving them a true future in this country.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I appreciate the constructive nature of the speech of the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) and the fact that he kept closely to the subject, which I cannot say that everybody else who has taken part in this debate has done. It has, however, been a good debate, because it has been remarkably non-controversial. On a difficult subject of this sort, that is the right kind of debate to have.
Some hon. Members may remember that I opposed the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill when it was introduced by my right hon. Friends nearly three years ago. I should like to try briefly to explain why I opposed the Bill then and why I support the renewal of the Act today. My position is really like that of the Government. Although the Home Secretary gave us an informative speech, however, I did not think that he fully explained the Government's change of


mind as from last year's position and the reasons for it. Although I was not present at the debate last year, I have read every word of it. [Interruption.] The only person who is always consistent on this subject is the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe).
My reasons—and they may well be the reasons of the Government, too—for taking these apparently contradictory positions are, paradoxically, the same now as they were in 1962. I will try to explain why. I care—as, I know, other hon. Members care, too—very deeply about the Commonwealth and I attach great importance to good race relations both in the Commonwealth and in the world as a whole.
It is often a good thing for a politician to have his head right up in the clouds of idealism but his feet firmly planted on the ground of realism. Although I think that my head was nicely up in the clouds in 1962 when the Bill was introduced, perhaps my feet were not sufficiently planted upon the ground. At least, when the Bill was brought in, I thought, and I so declared at the time, that it was a colour Bill, not by intention, but in appearance. It did not—and, I suppose, in fairness, it probably could not—include the Irish, and for this reason it looked to the Commonwealth as though it was a colour Bill.

Mr. Will Griffiths: Was it not?

Mr. Fisher: I am making the point that I said at the time that I thought it was a colour Bill, and I am trying to explain that although I do not think that was ever the intention of my right hon. Friends, nevertheless, because the Irish were left out, as they probably had to be—we know about the difficult practical problems of North and South—it seemed a colour Bill to the Commonwealth, and I thought that for this reason it would be bad for Commonwealth relations and also for race relations. I do not believe that the effect upon Commonwealth relations has been anything like as serious or as damaging as we all feared. Certainly, the reaction was keen at the time, I remember well, but, looking back, it is fair to say that it was ephemeral and that in the result it has not really done serious or lasting damage to Commonwealth relations.
As to race relations, I believe now that a larger and an uncontrolled influx of coloured immigrants would be more damaging to race relations in this country and, therefore, in the end, to Commonwealth relations, too, than the smaller and controlled influx that we have under the Act. We must face the fact that a larger and uncontrolled entry now would create such feeling among our own people here that there might be serious repercussions. There might be very strong anti-colour feeling, and possibly race riots and incidents of that kind, which would not only be prejudicial to the immigrants who are already here, but would have the worst possible effect upon race relations, both in Britain and outside it. Therefore, whereas I opposed the Bill because I thought that it would be bad for Commonwealth relations and also for race relations, paradoxically I now support the Act for the same reasons, because I think that, without it, the position would be worse.
11.15 p.m.
I had a third reason, I remember, for opposing the original Bill, one touched upon by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Devon, North. I am myself devoted to the West Indies, and I know the islands very well. I know the very real need for West Indians to emigrate in order to find employment elsewhere. In 1962 other doors were already shut. Until then ours had been open, and I knew the need of the West Indies that it should remain open, so I looked at the Bill as a Bill which was damaging potentially to the West Indies and their people. I was not thinking so much then—I probably should have been—of the much larger Asian countries of the Commonwealth and what would happen here if literally hundreds of thousands of Commonwealth citizens from India and Pakistan wanted to come to Britain. I probably ought to have thought about that more at the time, but, in fairness to myself and others who took the same view at that time, the truth is that at the time of the Act most of the immigrants came from the West Indies.
I took the view at the time—indeed, I take it still—that we could absorb the numbers coming from the West Indies, because they are relatively small islands with relatively small populations, and,


therefore, the demand of the number of people wanting to come here at any one time would not be so great that we could not absorb it. I still adhere to that view about the West Indies; but the trouble is that it is not so much a West Indian problem now but, as we all know, it is mainly an Asian problem.
Faced with that position, I think we have to admit that we have a very difficult problem. For some years before the original Act was passed India and Pakistan had imposed their own controls upon their own emigrants, but as time went on those controls weakened and the numbers of immigrants began to rise, at first gradually and rather slowly, and then very steeply, and applications lately for vouchers from the Asian countries of the Commonwealth have so grown that, as the Home Secretary told us today, there is a backlog of something like 300, 000 applications. This is so great that, if there had not been an Act, we could not possibly have absorbed, either in housing or in employment, the numbers who would have arrived here. That is a fact, and we all know it.
There is a further problem. I do not know that it has been touched upon today. Most Indians and Pakistanis cannot speak our language, and it may be that control under the Act should now be extended to language control as well, because it is so much more difficult to assimilate people who cannot speak the language of their adopted country.
I think the whole Committee now agrees that we have got to have some control of some sort. It has either to be control by Britain—in other words, by continuing the Act; or it can theoretically be voluntary, self-imposed control by the exporting countries of the Commonwealth. I am not very optimistic myself that we could get effective voluntary control. We could try, but we must certainly renew the Act pending the attempt. I think the only hope of securing voluntary control will be by having the alternative of compulsion in the background, by the Act remaining on the Statute Book.
The Government, I understand, favour an attempt to negotiate a voluntary agreement. I am not at all clear what their approach is going to be. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will be

able to help us on this when he replies. Do right hon. Gentlemen have it in mind simply to go on with bilateral talks between Britain and other individual Commonwealth Governments, which, I gathered from the Home Secretary, was the Government's probable line? Or do the Government propose to hold a Commonwealth migration conference? I rather favour this approach. If an attempt is to be made, I should like it to be made by means of a Commonwealth migration conference; not a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference, because at such a conference there is never time to discuss this sort of subject; but a special Commonwealth migration conference attended by the appropriate Ministers in charge of immigration and emigration in the various Commonwealth countries.
The attraction of that idea is that it would go much wider than bilateral arrangements simply with the United Kingdom. It would be a Commonwealth conference to deal with a Commonwealth problem. It would be designed to see whether the exporting countries of the Commonwealth, like India, Pakistan, and the West Indies, could come to some voluntary arrangement not only with Britain, but with the other importing countries of the Commonwealth like Australia and Canada, and perhaps to a lesser extent New Zealand. Frankly, I fear that it would fail, but it could be tried, and meanwhile, of course, the Act would continue in force, and if the conference failed we should all have to acknowledge that the Act had come to stay, and that we might as well take; it out of the expiring laws and make it a permanent part of our statutes.
Lastly, if hon. Members believe in and want good race relations, which I am persuaded that we all do in this House, let us get away from the atmosphere generated by Smethwick. All that one can say about Smethwick is that it has exposed a problem which all of us, in our heart of hearts, know exists. It is an unfortunate problem. It is the problem really—and I think that we might as well admit it—of racial prejudice.
It is unfortunate. In my view it is un-Christian; and it is always denied by those who feel it; but it exists. I believe that it is our duty here not to allow it to become worse by taking up strong


political attitudes ourselves, because if race once becomes an issue of party politics in this country, we are going to embark on a very dangerous and slippery slope.
I have no idea whether the Smeth-wick campaign was a dirty campaign or not, whether it was fought on racial lines or not. I do not even want to know. If it was, it was deplorable, and I hope that it will never happen again, but let us forget about it now if we can, because I cannot help feeling that in the interests of the integration of immigrants in this country there has already been too much talk, too much conflict, and too many recriminations on this subject. It is bad for race relations, and for the integration of the Commonwealth citizens who are already here.
In the same way, I wish very much that the Prime Minister had not mentioned it, deliberately, in his first speech as Prime Minister from that Box and in the way that he did, because I felt that it was below the level and the dignity of his great office. I am sure that he regrets it now, but even if he does not. I hope that we shall all forget it and not recriminate about his speech, and not recriminate about my hon. Friend's campaign, whatever it was. I hope that we shall get away from it all, and that it will not continue.
The main thing of importance is to prevent the colour of people's skins becoming, directly or indirectly, for any reason, a party political issue in this country. I believe that, having renewed this Act as we shall tonight, we should direct our minds and efforts to the constructive and immensely important task of integrating the Commonwealth citizens who are already here into our society.
They are doing a very fine job for us, as hon. Members have repeatedly said, in staffing the transport systems, in nursing, and in other occupations where they are a real help to us. We for our part ought to be a little more tolerant. We should befriend them and make them feel as welcome as we can. We should try to provide them—God knows it is difficult with a waiting list for our own people as well—with more homes to live in, and we should ensure a much closer liaison between the Ministry of Labour, which issues the permits, and the local authorities who have to cope with the

housing shortage in those areas where the West Indians or Pakistanis or Indians concentrate. We ought, somehow, to get a better liaison between the two so that we do not send too many people to the areas where it is already difficult and where there are already concentrations.
If we fail to do the sort of things about which we have all been talking today, if we allow racial bitterness to develop in Britain, which God forbid, we shall be creating not only a terrible and insoluble problem for our children and our grandchildren in this country but we shall be failing to make our contribution to the solution of the problem of race relations in the world.

Mr. Michael Foot: Except for a few minutes at the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), I have listened to the whole of this debate and I would say that it has been an extremely fascinating discussion. I should like to say that I agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) I agree very largely with what he stated was his attitude to the Act. It is not a much better Act than when it was first introduced. It is, in my opinion, a detestable thing which I should like to see removed altogether from the Statute Book.
One of the proudest things in the whole record of the Commonwealth was that people of that Commonwealth should be able to come to this country without any impediment whatever, and it is indeed a melancholy state of affairs to know that that right has been abolished. We are asked to renew this Act in very different circumstances from those in which the opposing party originally introduced it. The proposition of the Government today is surrounded with many other proposals, and if the party opposite had introduced the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill accompanied with a proposal for the abolition of racial discrimination and incitement of various kinds to race hatred, there would have been a great difference.
If the party which is today the Opposition had introduced the original Bill and accompanied it—or, better still, had preceded it—with proposals for discussions with the Commonwealth countries, there would have been a very


considerable difference. It would have removed a great deal of the bitterness felt, for example, by the Prime Minister of Jamaica, to whom reference has very rightly been made during this debate. It would have removed some of the bitterness felt in Pakistan and other parts of the Commonwealth, and so that is a second factor which makes the circumstances different.
The Government have given us the detailed figures about what has happened and given them frankly so that the whole atmosphere in which they ask us to renew this Act is different from what it was when we, on this side of the Committee, originally voted against it. Yet, even so, I hope that it is the undoubted determination of this Government to try to get rid of this Act altogether and to do so as soon as they possibly can. I hope that they will then substitute for it some arrangement which can be derived from full discussions with Commonwealth countries, and I repeat that I hope that they will do so as swiftly as they can.
I come now to what has just been said by the hon. Member for Surbiton and several other hon. Members on that side of the Committee, about party politics being removed altogether from this question. What they say is that if racial incitement becomes a party matter in this country, then it will make only for damage to this country as a whole. I so fully agree with them, but hon. Members opposite who make that claim should really try to discover how the issue has been turned into a party issue at all. The hon. Member has already given me half of my case by saying that he does not even want to discover how it arose; but I say to him and to his hon. Friends that it is the duty of the Conservative Party to discover it—to discover what really happened at Smethwick.

Mr. Fisher: I was trying to say that if the important thing—and I think we are all agreed that it is the most important—is to integrate these people and have no more bitterness, then we ought all to forget these recriminations and not seek to hinge on some one fault, because that is only making for bitterness again.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Foot: We are dealing with the situation that exists, which we have been

asked to do. There is a contrast between the way in which the party leaders have dealt with this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, I will explain exactly how different. A case was revealed in the last few days of an act of racial discrimination being practised in Smethwick by a club which is indirectly associated with the Labour Party. Within a matter of days the Prime Minister—the leader of the Labour Party—condemned that racial discrimination. We are still waiting to discover whether the leader of the Conservative Party condemns what happened in Smethwick in the election campaign. We were waiting to hear whether the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) condemned what happened in Smethwick. He has not done so.

Mr. Wise: It is quite correct that the Prime Minister condemned what happened in the case of the Labour club in Smethwick. Quite rightly; that was a known fact. But the hon. Gentleman knows nothing whatever about the way in which the Smethwick campaign was conducted.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Member says that I know nothing about it. I will give him some of the facts, and we will see which hon. Members opposite agree with what I say took place and which of them do not. We can make some guesses already. It is no use hon. Members opposite trying to pretend that they are all in agreement on this subject, and that their attitudes are all the same. We had a remarkable speech from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones). The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle) was complimented by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in one of the most remarkable maiden speeches that I have heard.
My hon. Friend talked about the dangers from lunatic groups. I have always regarded the right hon. Member for Hall Green and the right hon. Member for Handsworth as members of what I would call the sane fringe of the Conservative Party. We thought at one time that the hon. Member for Surbiton was a member of the same fringe, but now we are not quite so sure—and we never


supposed that the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise), who moved the Amendment at the beginning of the debate, belonged to that fringe. There has never been any mistake about that.
I am glad to see the Leader of the Opposition here, because he still has to discharge his responsibility in this matter. We want to know, particularly in view of all the statements made from hon. Members opposite condemning racial incitement and saying how much they deplore any action which has caused racial discrimination or hatred, what his attitude is, as leader of the Conservative Party, to what went on in Smethwick. We want as clear a statement from him on this matter as we have had from the leader of the Labour Party about the club in Smethwick.
Some hon. Members opposite say that they do not know what happened in Smethwick. If they had been listening to what was said by the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Peter Griffiths) I am not surprised. In his maiden speech he said:
I want to make it quite clear to the House that there is no resentment at all in Smethwick on the grounds of race or colour. I can assure hon. Members that the people in my constituency are as warm and as welcoming toward; strangers as are those of any other community in the British Isles.
In the following column he said—

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. The hon. Member must not quote from a speech made in this Session.

Mr. Foot: There must be some mistake, Sir Samuel. I am not quoting from the House of Lords but from a speech made in the House of Commons, and this is a common custom in this Committee.
In the following column the hon. Member said:
It is seeking to solve these problems, and I have, on every occasion, called for the most active co-operation between the members of all races in the town."[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1964: Vol. 701, c. 557-8.]
Some hon. Members may have believed what was said. Let us look at the independent evidence.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Did the hon. Member ask my hon. Friend the Member

for Smethwick (Mr. Peter Griffiths) to be present? He was in the Committee not long ago.

Mr. Foot: I have been here eight hours and, to do him credit, the hon. Member for Smethwick has been here most of the time. If he is not here now it is not my fault. I am perfectly entitled to deal with this matter. In any case I am not interested in what the hon. Member for Smethwick has to say. I am not concerned with the hon. Member. I am concerned with the attitude of the leader of the Conservative Party here and the leader of the Conservative Party in Birmingham. I am not interested in what the hon. Member for Smethwick has to say now.
Let us look at the report by The Times correspondent of what happened in Smethwick. The hon. Member for Surbiton has said he does not want to hear, but if he will be good enough to listen he will know the reasons why he should hear. This is what The Times correspondent wrote on 12th October, which appeared in that newspaper on 13th October:
Three of the rumours picked up at Smethwick within the last few days by Liberal canvassers are 'Patrick Gordon Walker's daughters married black men.' Patrick Gordon Walker sold his house at Smethwick to the blacks.' Because most of the blacks have leprosy, they are building two secret leper hospitals in the town.' Although these rumours do not contain one word of truth, some people believe them implicitly. Stickers bearing the words, If you want a nigger neighbour, vote Liberal or Labour' have been posted in the town. … The words 'Nigger Lover' have been daubed over some of Mr. Gordon Walker's posters. A disturbance began at a Conservative meeting last week a few moments after an apparent Conservative supporter had said 'If you black your face and go into a pub Gordon Walker will buy you a drink.' And Smethwick has at last come to this, that the great issues of the day are all twisted and perverted by the question of colour.
That is a report from an independent source of what happened in Smethwick. I do not know whether any member of the Conservative Party is proud of it.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: What has it got to do with the Conservative Party?

Mr. Foot: I am very grateful that the hon. Member has asked that question, because if he reads a little further on in the same report in The Times he will see what


this question has to do with the Conservative Party. The Times correspondent continues:
In the creation of this electoral atmosphere the Conservative Party at Smethwick has played a leading role. The evidence is there in black and white in the files of the local newspaper. It is plain and undeniable.
That is the situation. [An HON. MEMBER:"Rubbish."] But this is an independent source of evidence—

Sir E. Boyle: Does the hon. Member think that these rumours which he has read out justify the Prime Minister in suggesting that on his arrival here the Whip should be withdrawn from my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Peter Griffiths) and that his character should therefore be blackened before he ever opened his mouth in the House of Commons? As a strong supporter of the rights of the individual, does the hon. Member think that that is fair and just, based on rumour?

Mr. Foot: What the Prime Minister said on that occasion was absolutely right to say. I think that it was absolutely right to condemn in the strongest possible terms a Member who had got back to the House by an attempt to stir up racial hatred. The matter could have been dealt with earlier if the Leader of the Opposition had lived up to his responsibilities. The Leader of the Opposition, who prides himself on straight talk, is such a political coward that he dare not say what he thinks. He dared not say it before the election, and, apparently, he dare not say it now. The reason is that he knows that he has a few more racialists behind him and he will have trouble with them. It looks as though he has another in Leyton, if he lets him carry on with his campaign.

Mr. Wise: On a point of order, Sir Samuel. Probably quite rightly, Sir Samuel, you called me to order half-way through a much milder outburst than that of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot). Might I suggest very respectfully that he is going a little too far?

The Deputy-Chairman: I understand that the debate has been considerably widened since I gave that Ruling. But it is unfortunate that we should get away from the actual Amendment, and I hope

that the hon. Member will direct his references to it.

Mr. Foot: Might I suggest, Sir Samuel, that if you wish to call a Member to order on such a matter, you might have called upon the right hon. Member for Handsworth when he put a question to me about something said by the Prime Minister the other day. I was replying to his intervention, saying that the matter of the hon. Member for Smethwick could have been fully dealt with if the Leader of the Opposition had responded to the statement made by the Prime Minister and had said whether he condemned the provocation of racial hatred in the Smethwick campaign. If the right hon. Gentleman had said that, the whole matter could have been dealt with differently; but he has completely failed to deal with it.
It is no good hon. Gentlemen opposite saying in this debate that they think that the word "Smethwick" should not be mentioned again and that it would be very agreeable if no one ever referred to it. Of course, it would be very agreeable for the hon. Member for Smethwick and for the Leader of the Opposition. Then they would be able to go out of this building and continue making the same kind of speeches. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said that there was a very different temperature in this debate from some of the previous ones we had had on this subject. Of course, there is a different temperature and tone in what he and many of his hon. Friends say here from what they say outside.
Referring again to the particular case of Smethwick, my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook has already referred to the organisation in Birmingham which has been campaigning for many years in stirring up racial hatred, supposedly condemned by all hon. Members opposite. According to the evidence given by my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, this organisation has been campaigning in stirring up bitter racial hatred at every opportunity, and it has been led by a gentleman whose name is Mr. Finney. Mr. Finney has now become a member of the Conservative Party in Smethwick. He is on the council in Smethwick. He was brought into the Conservative Party in Smethwick at the invitation of the hon. Member for Smethwick. All this is revealed in an


article in the Sun today, written by a person called Paul Foot—why he is not in the Government already, I cannot understand—and the evidence is there in complete detail.
Let me quote what is said by this chief associate of the hon. Member for Smethwick and illustrate the kind of propaganda which he has been conducting. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite from Birmingham will approve of this kind of thing.

Mr. Renton: On a point of order, Sir Samuel. The hon. Gentleman has been addressing the Committee for quite a time now and scarcely any of his remarks have been devoted to the question whether the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, should be included in the Schedule to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Is it not time that the hon. Gentleman addressed his mind to that point?

The Deputy-Chairman: I have already asked the hon. Gentleman to relate what he is saying to the Amendment before the Committee. I hope that he will now do so.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Foot: Sir Samuel, the Amendment says that we should vote against the continuation of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. Therefore, I should have thought I was perfectly entitled to question the claims frequently made by some hon. Gentlemen during the debate that they are as much opposed to racial hatred or provocation as we are and that they have a clean record in this respect.
What we have been seeking to do during the debate, and what I am seeking to do now, is to discover what is the attitude of, first, the Leader of the Opposition and, secondly, the leader of the Conservative Party in Birmingham to some of the most flagrant campaigns of racial hatred carried out by some members of their party throughout that part of the country. In order to show the kind of statements they are making I was proposing to quote from an article which appeared yesterday in the Northern Echo, which gives evidence of the kind of propaganda which is being conducted in that area about the Act by a leading member of the Conservative Party.
This is what is said by a Conservative councillor, Donald Finney, and if the Leader of the Opposition has not the courage to repudiate the hon. Member for Smethwick, let us see whether he will repudiate the Conservative councillor in Smethwick. Let hon. Members remember that we have been told throughout the debate that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not believe in stirring up racial hatred. This is what Councillor Finney says:
Having a huge number of children, West Indians could in less than half a century outnumber us English, and with one-man-one-vote they could do something that Hitler couldn't do—take over this country, as we have seen happen in so many other Commonwealth countries. This is what we can expect from a Labour Government, a party with a policy to destroy the English race and the English way of life. To do this they have Fenner Brockway's infamous antidiscrimination Bill. It will hit at every Englishman and Englishwoman's right to speak his or her own mind. This Bill will also take away everyone's right to accept or reject any coloured man or woman who may call at a boarding house. All coloured people must be taken or else there is a £100 fine or three months' imprisonment. The Labour Party has also been learning from Hitler, but we also learned how to kick out dictators. The voters at the General Election will vote to keep out dictators as they did to Smethwick's Labour Council.
I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite think that that is stirring up racial hatred or not, or do they think it is promoting racial harmony? [Interruption.]
If hon. Gentlemen opposite want some further examples, I have one from an article written by the hon. Member for Smethwick himself. We have been told about the need to build a multi-racial society. It has been suggested that it would be a great thing if this country could be the first. We had a remarkable maiden speech from the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who said that if this country could build the first multi-racial society we should have every right to be extremely proud. But this is the view of the hon. Member for Smethwick who says that he has never in any circumstances said anything which could possibly promote racial hatred in his constituency:
Smethwick rejects the idea of being a multi-racial society.…Surely if more houses are built they should go to British people first.…In any case"—


we have been told that hon. Members opposite are very deeply concerned about the housing problem—
would more houses end the nuisance an d filth? Would more houses end the knife fights. Would more houses make the streets safe for young women and girls?
Does the Leader of the Opposition think that that is desirable propaganda?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I find the hon. Gentleman's references to me so completely offensive, suggesting that I am in any way concerned with racial discrimination of any kind, that I shall treat them with the contempt which they deserve. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) will wind up the debate, and he will deal with them.

Mr. Foot: The Leader of the Opposition has had another opportunity to say whether or not he agrees with what was done in Smethwick. He does not think he has any duty to discourage or encourage it. He thinks that it has nothing to do with him that, for the first time perhaps in the history of this country, a Member has been elected to this House primarily on conducting a most bitter racialist campaign. The Leader of the Opposition does not think it is any of his business.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Does not the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) think that his display of extreme personal hatred for several hon. Members on this side of the Committee and for people in Smethwick is just a little worse than anything he is trying to condemn?

Mr. Foot: I hate those who stir up racial hatred. I think we have a duty to hate them. Are we in this Committee—and the Conservative Party, for it is more the business of that party—to say, "We do not care if such a campaign as that in Smethwick is mounted"? If he is challenged by the Prime Minister to say whether or not he is in favour of such campaigning or against, is the Leader of the Opposition to say, "I will say nothing"? He has been challenged by me to say something after I have quoted some of the things said by the hon. Member for Smethwick during his campaign,

but we have heard the right hon. Gentleman say that it is nothing to do with him. He does not feel called upon to make any comment on it whatsoever.
I know, and the Committee knows, that the result of the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to condemn the kind of methods employed in Smethwick will be to encourage other Conservative candidates in future to engage in the same kind of campaigning. It has already been indicated by hon. Members opposite that a similar campaign may be starting in a by-election which is to take place in a few weeks' time. I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition will take the same attitude to that.
It is not that the Conservative Central Office was not warned about what was happening. The party leaders could have got out of this matter more easily for themselves and more honourably. Many months ago there was an organisation in Birmingham for co-ordinating the activities of those opposed to racial discrimination. On numerous occasions in the last two years it communicated with the Conservative Central Office—with the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) when he was party chairman, and with his successor. It sent letters and cuttings from the newspapers reporting the kind of campaign being conducted in Smethwick and asked the Conservative Party to say what it thought of it.
One or two right hon. and hon. Members opposite have indicated clearly what they thought of it. The right hon. Member for Hall Green and the right hon. Member for Handsworth did so. The right hon. Member for Handsworth had letters from some of these neoFascist organisations which have been supporting the hon. Member for Smethwick in his constituency. He was asked what his attitude was and, to his great credit, he condemned racial discrimination and the stirring up of racial hatred in the most positive and deliberate manner.
All I ask is that the Leader of the Opposition should have the same courage as the right hon. Member for Handsworth. I hope that one day the Leader of the Opposition will have the nerve to take his courage in both hands and condemn racial hatred and apartheid,  not merely in far away Africa but right here at home,


where members of his own party are seeking political advantage by stirring up racial hatred in the most bestial manner.

Sir E. Boyle: I do not think that, despite his efforts, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has really raised the temperature in the Committee all that much during the past 20 minutes. But before coming to what the hon. Gentleman said, I will start my speech in the customary manner on these occasions by congratulating the hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches and also by referring to one swansong that we have heard.
We had a most thoughtful maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) who had a considerable reputation as a political thinker and writer before he entered the House, and I am sure that the very thoughtful way in which he spoke today will encourage us very much to hear him on other occasions. Then, secondly, we had the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr), who spoke, if I may say so, in the most genial, if thrusting, manner. The third maiden speech which we had was from the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), and I should like to say that I regretted the necessity to raise the point I did towards the end of his speech and to assure him that the House will always listen with interest to a speech which is both a hard-hitting, debating speech and one based on deep feeling, and that my remarks were no reflection on the quality of his speech, which impressed us all considerably.
I am sorry that I missed the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) which, I am told, was of outstanding quality. This is a point on which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and I can agree. The hon. Member for Spark-brook mentioned the social work being done on the immigrant question in Spark-brook. I am sure that the Committee would like me to make reference to the fact that we heard what may well be the last speech in this Chamber by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen). I must say that I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. John Harvey) paid him a fair

compliment when he quoted a most apposite passage from the first speech made by the hon. Member for Leyton in the House.
There was a passage in the speech of the Home Secretary on which I should like to comment. At the very end of his speech the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that effective control of immigration was indispensable. I think that, without any desire to raise undue controversy on this point, I must from this Box express satisfaction that we are at long last united on this point. I must say that I could not help contrasting the conclusion of the Home Secretary's speech with the atmosphere at the conclusion of the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill in 1961. I can well remember on that occasion not only the Opposition's spokesman ending with a reference to "this miserable, shameful, shabby Bill", but also the strong attempt that was made to deny a hearing to my colleague, Mr. John Hare as he then was, when he rose to wind up for the Government. None of us welcomed the Bill for its own sake. I think all of us recognised the Bill as an unpleasant necessity. However, we are now agreed at last that effective control is indispensable.
The other point I wish to mention in the Home Secretary's speech is that he said that we are faced with a problem with which we have to deal, and I very much commend that approach to the Committee.
I was struck with an article which I read in The Guardian on, I think, Monday of this week which said that the position now reached encourages "caution rather than generosity and, as some Labour Members believe, frankness rather than idealism." I hope that none of us in the Committee will think that there is any necessary inconsistency between frankness and idealism, because I think that idealism must be based always on a frank recognition of a difficult problem and the realities of the situation that has brought it about. It is very easy when discussing this subject of race relations, or race hatred, or any other subject of this kind, to talk in general terms and block phrases, but, speaking as I do as a Member for a multi-racial constituency, I could not help reflecting on the contrast in the atmosphere


when we are discussing this subject in this Committee and when it is being discussed in my constituency.
12 m.
As the Committee knows, I did not attempt to raise any undue heat on this subject during the election in my constituency. Neither, as some people have asserted, did I try to sweep it under the carpet. However, I have known few other topics about which there has been more intense feeling among individual people. I have known few topics on which there has been a more clamant desire to feel that one's Member of Parliament was identified with one's own personal point of view. This is a subject about which there is strong feeling among individuals, particularly in the older parts of our big cities where people have lived all their lives and where they have seen the character of the neighbourhood change very rapidly. We always need to bear that personal aspect in mind when we are discussing this question.
We must be very careful not to confuse racialism with realism. I hope that I will always condemn racialism as much as anyone. I can think of very few meaner actions than publicly identifying some vice, or disease, or bad social conditions with a particular racial group in the community. I hope that all of us in this Committee will agree on that. However, at the same time let us be realistic about this subject. Here I should like to quote a sentence which has impressed me and which is from a book by Mrs. Elspeth Huxley called "Back Street New Worlds". She says:
While race discrimination is out of fashion nowadays, quite a lot of citizens harbour doubts, fears and resentments they are, in the present climate of opinion, ashamed to admit.
Those are the realities of the present situation.
It is a most encouraging feature of our national life today that so few people are prepared to say that they favour race discrimination. But doubts, fears and resentments are very strongly felt among many people. Many people are conscious of a difference between how they feel and how they feel they ought to feel. Doubts and fears of this sort are widely felt in this country, and I am sure that we ought to approach this subject with sympathy and in a constructive spirit.
That leads me to say something about the attitude of my party to this question. Here I should like to answer the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, because the attitude of the Conservative Party was expressed quite clearly in a letter from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to the present Foreign Secretary. My right hon. Friend said:
As you know, I made my views on racial discrimination abundantly clear on the television last Thursday. I said, first, that any immigrant and his family who are accepted into this country will be treated exactly like one of our own citizens.
My right hon. Friend went on to make it clear that a Conservative Government believed in keeping strict control over the number of immigrants so as to make sure that no undesirable social problems arose for the future.
Those remain our views on the question. My right hon. Friend made them absolutely clear in his letter to the present Foreign Secretary, and I distinctly recall that the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Peter Griffiths) expressed his concurrence and agreement with my right hon. Friend's letter. I must say that I could not help noticing that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale went on with his catalogue for nearly 20 minutes before reaching a single quotation from the hon. Member for Smethwick himself. If we in the House of Commons are to judge party policies by the remarks of individual councillors, there is a great deal that can be said in future at some time from this side of the Committee. Let us not start playing that game, Sir Samuel, or your patience and that of your successors in the Chair will, I suspect, soon be put to a strain.
I will enlarge on what I have said about the policy of my party. My hon. Friends and I will always set our faces against making any difference between one citizen and another on the ground of his racial origin. The Conservative Party—and, I believe, the overwhelming majority of people in this country—want to see the assimilation of immigrants, including what the Home Secretary rather happily called immigrants from the new Commonwealth, into our life and society; the life and society of what is now their home country. I dare say that a number of them will wish to retain some of their distinct customs and beliefs, but the idea of any racial group which must remain, as a


group, for ever unassimilated is obviously not tolerable.
This cannot be a quick or easy task because there are already at least 800, 000 of them in this country, as the Home Secretary told us, and many of them are concentrated in certain regions. I believe that many generations must pass before we have fully tackled this problem successfully.
It is against this background that one must look at the question of numbers. I would like, on behalf of the whole Committee, to thank the Home Secretary for the full details he gave earlier. It is not the easiest technical operation to deploy a table of figures to the Committee, but the details which he gave will be of the greatest value to the world outside and all hon. Members will be obliged to him for that detailed information.
I will make two comments on those figures. First, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, having talked about dependants and evasion—I will return to this subject shortly—said that the existing scale of voucher holders should be maintained. I admit that my calculations are only approximate, but the maintenance of the existing scale of voucher holders means—not, I think, 100, 000 immigrants a year—but at least 50, 000 to 60, 000 a year of the total immigrant intake, of whom, as the right hon. Gentleman said, a very high proportion will be from the new Commonwealth.
Frankly, I think the figure implied by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely the maximum figure we can manage in this country at present. Indeed, many people would say that it is more than the maximum. I say that because I am convinced that strict control of immigration, is indeed vital to the pursuit of racial harmony in this country.
The Home Secretary then said, referring to the question of evasion, that the Government must take steps about it if it got beyond a certain point but that, naturally, the Government were hesitant to take measures which made one think in terms of the more stringent kind of control applicable to aliens. One of the things public opinion is most concerned with at present—and this applies not only to extremists but also to moderates on this question—is the issue of evasion, and I hope, however painful it may be, that

the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not hesitate to take steps about evasion if he thinks this is right. From what he said, it is clear that the level of evasion is becoming a serious matter.
Having spoken of numbers, I will devote the remainder of my remarks to the positive aspects of our policy and to how we can ensure that we do the best thing for the immigrants and for the country. I am sure that we all agreed with the Home Secretary when he said that we could not have any division between, as it were, first- and second-class citizens.
I must, in this context, say something about housing and education. I am sure that the Housing Act, which we passed in the last Session of the last Parliament, will be of value in the context of enabling local authorities to operate more strongly against multi-occupation when this is a danger to health. On the education side, as the Committee knows, during my period as Minister I devoted a good deal of attention to this aspect of the matter.
Now that the level of expenditure on educational research is rising and we are looking forward, as we were in the last Parliament, to something like £½million a year on research by 1968, I hope that it will be possible to do more research projects on the subject of what is the threshold of danger in the proportion of immigrants in any one school. I have heard it said by many experienced and knowledgeable head teachers that when there is a concentration of about 30 per cent. of immigrants in a school, the educational problems rapidly multiply. Furthermore, the older inhabitants no longer want to send their children to those schools and the problem intensifies itself rapidly. I suggest to the Government that this is a matter on which a research project would be valuable.
Again, I was struck very much with what has been said in this and the earlier debate about the importance of more social workers in this context. I cannot help wondering whether it might not be possible to get help from the University Grants Committee and the universities. Only recently, one of the universities has undertaken work in a department which will result in more educational researchers, and at a time of university


expansion it may be possible to get help here.
Then there is the question of advice and information on teaching methods—I would draw attention here to the pamphlet that we have already produced on English for Immigrants and, finally, the question of adding to the administrative strength of the section of the Department of Education which is responsible for the schools. I mention these matters because I am sure that the time is soon coming when the problems of the schools will arise acutely. We have heard only today of the conference recently held in West Bromwich, where it looks very much as though, by 1968, 16 per cent. of children in junior schools and 20 per cent. in secondary modern schools will be coloured members of the new Commonwealth. It is against this background that, I believe, rapid planning will be needed.

Mr. Parkin: The right hon. Gentleman has said "finally", but I hope that he will say something to the Minister of Labour about his own views on the connection between the education service, the youth employment service and the follow-up of training in the jobs taken by those who leave school early.

Sir E. Boyle: In view of the considerably larger number of Ministers who have been appointed in those fields, this should be an easier task for the present Government to undertake. As the hon. Member says, however, close liaison here between the Department of Education and the Ministry of Labour is extremely important.
In conclusion, I should like to say only this—

Mr. Tom Driberg: There is plenty of time.

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member says that encouragingly, but my impression is that after midnight hon. Members are best not indulging themselves too much.
In our whole approach to this matter, we should avoid the errors both of excessive optimism and of excessive pessimism. I have no patience whatever with those who say that the problem of assimilating immigrants can never be solved to any appreciable extent and that, therefore, the only course of

action is try to eliminate the problem. Let us recognise that in many parts of the country we are already today a multi-racial society.
I will not go over again all that has been said about the services performed by many of the immigrants. Those services are of real economic importance. It is, however, nothing new in politics to have to draw a balance between economic advantage and social advantage. This leads me to those who. as I see it, take too easy and too optimistic a view of this question.
Let us have no doubt about it. This matter of immigration, even at its present level, is causing a great deal of extreme unhappiness and a considerable amount of tension and difficulty. That is why I ask the Home Secretary, as I am sure he will, on this matter not to think in terms just of ideas and principles, but to realise that for the sake of social harmony and for the sake of solving our problems, bearing in mind the heavy level of concentration of immigration that we already have, it is bound to be necessary to continue strict control of immigration for the future. It is for that reason that my party greatly welcomes the fact that we are today more agreed on this principle than we might have dared to hope two or three years ago.

12.15 a.m.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter): I would in the first place join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) in extending congratulations on what I think has been a number of remarkable maiden speeches this afternoon. I think the debate, after the first two principal speakers had spoken, had its context given by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) in what I thought was a remarkable contribution to this debate. Then there was my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr), who can speak with such authority on this matter, and then there was also the perhaps unusual speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard), which I am sure we all enjoyed, although, as I say, it was a little unusual. Then there was the first-class speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, there was also a speech which was not a maiden but which must be mentioned, the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen), who may well have spoken for the last time in this Chamber. Remembering his remarkable services, not only to his constituency but also to this Committee and the House, and the contribution he has made in lifting the standards of public life over the last 30 years, I am sure we shall miss him, and that we wish him well in whatever place he is likely to go.
This debate has, I believe, on the whole been a very helpful debate. I am quite sure that there is not a great deal of purpose in arousing any further acrimony. Answers have to be given for what we say in public life and during elections. There is no reason for any politician in this Committee to shrink from controversy. I would submit to the Committee, however, that the problem we are facing in this country, which, as we have all admitted in today's debate, is a very big one, is but a facet of a much greater problem which besets the whole world. It would be as well if we reminded ourselves that perhaps the greatest contribution which the British people have made has been that we have been able to embrace changes of many kinds, whether resulting from wars, revolution, warring classes, or religious differences; that we have been able to embrace them and have uniquely remained in this world a free society. That free society, after all its ups and downs, has been based upon a broad tolerance.
That is what the world is in most need of—a broad and sweeping tolerance, whether in religion or between nations, and in what may well prove to be the greatest problem of the last 40 years of this century, the clash of colour. Therefore, I would say to this Committee that if we can, with our opportunity and with our experience and with our tolerance, show to the world that we can not only embrace changes, not only embrace clash of classes, but also come to terms with the problem of colour and all it means, we may yet again give to the nations of the world an example which they may seek to follow in solving this very deep and biting problem.
We are all sinners. Do not anyone assume a holier than thou attitude. Let

us conclude that no public man or woman in this country ought to do other than be most careful in the choice of his or her words about this problem. Everyone of us ought to have a proper regard not only for local interests or electoral interests but for the fact that any exacerbation of feeling in this country can very well have its repercussions elsewhere. I therefore suggest that we should all view this matter with the seriousness that it deserves, for I believe that if we can solve this problem there is great hope. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it will be a long time before we really get to the solution of it.
There are two kinds of people who I think are very foolish in this controversy—not only foolish, but in some cases criminal. There are those who meet it with words which have been used tonight, "Nigger for a neighbour", with contempt for some other section of the Creation, and with the attitude that there is something better in being white than in being black, when it is all an accident of birth. These are the people who do great damage in this war of intolerance, but almost equally daft are those who believe that no problem exists, people who seem to think that this problem can be swept under the carpet.
All history proves that when people are faced with this problem there are social tensions. There are, inevitably, the problems which arise from different customs and different habits, and it is no good anybody saying that they do not exist. The problem is there, and all that I can say is that those who do not happen to live in those communities most affected ought to keep very quiet, because some of us know from experience in our constituencies the difficulties and the tensions which arise when people are crowded on top of one another. Let us be very careful before we take any "holier than thou" attitude.
The problem does not arise only from the difference in social habits. Some of our social habits are just as daft to the other people as theirs are to us. I remember serving with a unit in the Persian Gulf. To my astonishment, I found that with a unit of 180 mixed Indian troops, five latrines had to be dug in the desert. Eventually I discovered that


it was not really that the Indians objected to using my latrine. It was just that they thought that the habits of the English people were a little unclean in these matters, so they had a latrine of their own. Let us, therefore, be very careful.
I think that our language should be very reserved and very careful. The problems which have been raised during this debate are principally those of social habits and of housing and education. The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that one of the greatest of these problems arises from housing. It is no use any hon. Member arguing about it. if one of our coloured brethren gets a council house, however much he may be entitled to it, one can depend on there being a row. It is therefore the duty of this Government, and I hope that we shall fulfil it, to do what we can to ease the housing situation, which is at the root of so many of our problems.
Let us not shrink from the problems of education. The right hon. Gentleman used a figure which we have come to accept as true. He said that when there are more than 30 per cent. the problems in the schools mount. Let no one in this Committee shrink from the fact that, if our own children's education is going to be affected because there are more than 30 per cent., we do something. We feel that this is unwise in the interests of our children. Inevitably, therefore, great priority must be given to these remedial measures which are necessary at the present time.
Many questions have been asked today, most of them in quite constructive speeches. With respect to those hon. Members who have spoken today, I thought that the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) summarised quite a number of the questions which were asked. He was quite right in pointing out that they did not, in the first place, want to come to this country. It is a fact that they would much rather live in their own countries. Here I might say that one of the great adventures before this country of ours in the future—I hope the near future—could be to see how we could increase our sense of responsibility to those countries; to see what capital investment could be made towards more employment in those

countries. That, however, is a long-term job and, as I have said, many of the immigrants do not want to come here. I might say that I speak with some feeling, for most of the Welsh people who are here did not want to come. They would rather have stayed at home, but in their case as in that of the Commonwealth people, they came because of economic circumstances.
I should now say something about the suggested special Commonwealth conference. Those hon. Members who have spoken of it would ask, I think, for a clear and concise answer tonight, but all I can say is that the idea will be very carefully looked at to see if it would be a wise move.
So far as the activities of the Home Office Advisory Committee are concerned I would remind the House that three reports have been issued, one only seven or eight weeks ago. Hon. Members may have missed that because of the general election. So far as labour attachés are concerned, I have to report that we are looking at the situation. We have not been there very long, and we are trying to pick up the threads. We are doing so as quickly as we can.
Generally, I do not want to enter into controversy now. Many scoring points could be made. There is the attitude of the Conservative Party during the election and, without raising any storm, I think that it is the duty of the leader of the Opposition to take his stand in this matter and let both parties be clear for the future.

Sir A. Douglas-Home: I will respond to that now. I treated the intervention of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M.Foot) with the contempt that I thought it deserved and I have made my position, and the position of my party quite clear. I wrote to Mr. Gordon Walker, and I said on television during the election that in no circumstances is racial discrimination tolerated by my party, and I went on to read the letter, which the hon. Gentleman chose to ignore. I have made my own position quite clear throughout my five years at the Commonwealth Relations Office, as leader of the Conservative Government, and as Leader of the Opposition; that there should be no racial discrimination in any circumstances, and


that it is not tolerated in my party nor, I hope, in any other.

Mr. Gunter: Perhaps I may turn to the continuation of this Act. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I repeat some of the figures which have already been given by the Home Secretary, but I do so in order to emphasise the difficulty. I am responsible for the issue of the vouchers prescribed in the Act for the people who wish to come here to work. There is, and always has been, a limit on the total number of vouchers given in any one period. During this year, they have been given at the rate of just over twenty thousand a year, and we have been issuing them at about that rate between 19th October and 13th November. About 1, 600 were issued in that period.
I think it is known that not all the people who get the vouchers use them. Only about 75 per cent. are actually taken up, and it is also very difficult to arrive at any precise figure about the number of dependants. We must assume, and can certainly reckon, that it is larger than the number of voucher holders. I am not saying whether that is the right rate or not. We will have to take a very careful look at all the factors involved before we decide whether this rate is right or not. Many of those factors have been mentioned in the debate, but for the present we propose to continue the issue of vouchers at the same rate as they have been issued in recent months, until we have had an opportunity of examining the working of the Act.
12.30 a.m.
My right hon. and learned Friend has already told the Committee about categories A, B and C, and I want to emphasise at this point that we have issued no vouchers to applicants in category C. The present position—and this has been more or less the position for several months—is that the number of applications in categories A and B has completely crowded out the applications in category C.
I must point out that the backlog of category C vouchers is now in the region of 300, 000. One hon. Member rightly said that this problem is now largely an Asian rather than an African one, because out of those category C vouchers, involving 300, 000 applicants, no fewer

than 290, 000 are from Pakistan and India. This is a very unsatisfactory situation. It is clear to me, at least, that the existing rules, which allow category C applications to be accepted, give some measure of hope to those who make the applications. If they are then to be dealt with on the simple basis of "first come first served" we cannot really cope with the situation. We must carefully consider what we are to do about the operation of the voucher system.
Mention has been made of the need for closer control and a more careful look at what happens after persons pass through the immigration control. These are very complex matters. We must take into account all the factors, and all the views of the Commonwealth Governments, always bearing in mind, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, that if we are to let these people in as Commonwealth citizens and then impose upon them a tight control that is completely alien to the free society in which we live, we will create a dangerous situation. The rule for granting priority in category A has been that an employer in this country must satisfy the Ministry of Labour that he has a genuine vacancy for a named Commonwealth citizen and that that named citizen is intending to come here to take up that job.
That sounds all right, but the rules are very difficult to administer. It is sometimes difficult to say whether a vacancy is genuine or not. There are opportunities for abuse, and here and there we find that an unfair advantage is given to a Commonwealth citizen who has a friend or relative who is willing to find or offer him a job. Furthermore, there is no requirement that the person who is given the voucher to come to a specific job must go to that job, or, if he does go, that he must remain in that job for a certain time. It will be appreciated by the Committee that grave difficulties exist in the present situation.
The number of applicants who can successfully establish a claim to priority in categories A and B is now greater than the total number of vouchers available for issue. This means that there is a delay in issuing vouchers in those categories.
An employer who has a genuine job waiting and who has a Commonwealth citizen abroad lined up for it must be told


at present that he will have to wait some weeks before a voucher can be issued. If the number of applications increase at the present rate this delay will automatically increase. This recent development is clearly unsatisfactory.
I have talked firstly in this matter about the issue of vouchers because this is the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour under the Act. However, I must remind the Committee that, as the Home Secretary has already said, voucher holders themselves form only a small proportion of the Commonwealth citizens who come here. In addition, there are the dependants not only of the voucher holders coming in but of Commonwealth citizens already resident here. The number of dependants coming in therefore is not necessarily related to the number of voucher holders who come here during any one period, although of course the number will be affected by that factor.
As the Home Secretary has said, a number of people who clearly come here for purposes other than employment eventually stay and take work. To sum up, neither the voucher scheme nor the general system of control under the Act has been working completely satisfactorily. The rules governing the issue of vouchers are no longer applicable to the true facts of the situation, and the provisions of the Act have been unable to prevent a larger number of people coming here to stay and to take work than we intended.

Mr. Thorpe: Could the right hon. Gentleman assist the Committee in relation to C vouchers? It was made clear in the 1963 debate by the then Minister that although vouchers were awarded on the "first come, first served" basis, a 25 per cent. quota applied so that there was some apportionment as between the competing claims of different countries. There was, that is to say, a built-in number on which each country could draw so that we did not have the position of having 99 per cent. of C vouchers going to one country and 1 per cent. to the others. Is that roughly the position now?

Mr. Gunter: We have not issued any C vouchers for a very long time and therefore the question is academic, but the principle is still there. Therefore it is for these reasons that we think that

we must have a careful look at the whole system of control, including the voucher scheme. As the Home Secretary has said, we are already in touch with Commonwealth Governments about consultations with them on this subject. I do not underestimate the difficulties of the task. We must evolve a scheme which is workable and fair. We have to take account of the relevant factors and let us never forget, for heaven's sake, the valuable contribution which so many of our immigrants are making to our economy, in transport, and as nurses and doctors.
I believe that a sound scheme can be evolved, based on how many this country can assimilate properly and adequately, thus avoiding so many of the bitter problems which arise if too many are taken. I believe that in the best interests of the Commonwealth countries and their citizens as well as ourselves it would be as well that we continue this Act at present and review the whole situation to meet this great problem and challenge. I believe that the debate has been helpful. Whatever our previous positions, and whatever they are now, I ask the Committee that we should face the situation in the light of our traditions in this country of great tolerance and understanding of people who perhaps do not conform to our way of life.

Mr. Wise: In view of the very constructive suggestions put forward by the Government in this debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Driberg: I was profoundly relieved when, at almost literally the eleventh hour, the Chair saw and called my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), who, I thought, very effectively demolished the atmosphere of cosy gentility which had overhung the entire debate until then. Of course, there were certain difficulties for the Chair, as for all of us. There were several maiden speeches, many of them brilliant, such as the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and the speech of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas); but one of the difficulties about maiden speeches, as everyone knows, is that they are supposed to be relatively non-controversial. Not only


were there several maiden speeches but there were several speeches by backbench Privy Councillors, whom the Chair might feel obliged to call, and, of course, if maiden speakers are not yet controversial, Privy Councillors are above controversy.
The general effect of the debate, therefore, until the moment at which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale spoke, was rather too cosy. It was the sort of debate in which Members of Parliament often flatter themselves, boasting that the House is "at its best"—which almost always means that the House is at its most sanctimonious, smug, soporific and stifling.
The hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), who has a good record in these matters and who means well—we all grant him that—said how disastrous it would be if this became a matter of party controversy. But it is a matter of party controversy. Inevitably, it is a matter of party controversy until, or unless, the Leader of the Opposition has the courage to respond to the challenge of the Prime Minister and the challenge of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, which again tonight he dodged with characteristic political cowardice.
The Leader of the Opposition got up in a great state of indignation and interrupted my right hon. Friend who was winding up and referred to the letter to which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) had already referred. Of course, that letter to our right hon. colleague the Foreign Secretary was impeccable in terms as a general expression of pious regret at any suggestion that there could be such a thing as racial discrimination. It reminded me of what our late friend Aneurin Bevan, the predecessor of my hon. Friend at Ebbw Vale, used to say about the Tory Party—that it is always in favour of reform in general and against every reform in particular.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition makes the correct noises about racial discrimination and so on, but when he is asked specifically to repudiate a Member of Parliament who has got into the House on the basis of one of the dirtiest and filthiest racialist campaigns ever conducted anywhere, even in Nazi Germany, he is too cowardly to do so.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: He is not here now.

Mr. Driberg: Neither of them is here now, in fact. I remind hon. Members of a famous fragment of dialogue, which I took the precaution of looking up for the purpose of greater accuracy:
'Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?'
'To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time'.
'The dog did nothing in the night-time.'
'That was the curious incident', remarked Sherlock Holmes.
The dog in this night-time was the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Peter Griffiths). There were dozens of references to Smethwick during the debate. Hon. Members have said, rightly, that Smethwick is a disgrace to British democracy, and so on. They have attacked the electoral tactics pursued at Smethwick on the basis of which the hon. Member got in. Yet the hon. Member sat there throughout most of the debate and did not once rise to try to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair. I do not know why that was. I should have thought that he would have felt obliged to speak in this debate of all debates.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Wise: The fault may partly be mine. I did not expect the debate to go on as long as this. I advised my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Peter Griffiths) that it would be very injudicious to allow an expert in black-guarding to follow him—and that was the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg).

Mr. Driberg: One cannot win when one is up against racialists apparently. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was bitterly criticised because he attacked the new Member without having given him notice that he was going to do so. I took the trouble to follow the customary courteous practice of the House, and I dropped a note to the hon. Member—I am sorry; I should not have used the word"honourable"—to the Member for Smethwick, warning or advising him that if I spoke in the debate I might be making some references to him. The note was handed to the Member for Smethwick. I gather from what the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise)


has just said that he advised the Member for Smethwick not to speak. It is a very curious form of guardianship or trusteeship.

Mr. Wise: I advised my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick not to allow the hon. Member for Barking to follow him.

Mr. Driberg: Then it seems that the hon. Member for Rugby was to some extent usurping the function of the Chair. It is not for him or for the Member for Smethwick—

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): Order. I would ask the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) to follow the normal custom of the House of Commons and refer to "the hon. Member".

Mr. Driberg: Why? Is it laid down, may I ask, in Erskine May, with great respect to you, Mr. Hynd?

The Temporary Chairman: It is the custom of the House.

Mr. Driberg: Well, I do so at your direction, Mr. Hynd, and under protest, with all the respect that is due to you as the occupant of the Chair.
If I may return to what I was saying—

Sir E. Boyle: In recent days Smethwick has been equated with Sharpeville, by the Leader of the House, and this evening with Nazi Germany. The people of Smethwick, irrespective of their politics, are beginning to get a little tired of this, and I suggest that we ought now to leave Smethwick.

Mr. Driberg: That is the fault of those of them who voted for the Member for Smethwick—I beg your pardon, Mr. Hynd—the hon. Member for Smethwick. They asked for it by behaving as they did on polling day. I am afraid that we, for the time being, have got to continue rubbing in the fact. After all, the Smethwick Labour Club, so called, has confirmed that Smethwick at the moment is on the roll of dishonour of place names like Sharpeville, Hola and the rest of them—and Perry Barr also, come to that.
I think it was the right hon. Member for Handsworth who said, rightly, that there is intense feeling about this

whole subject of the racial tensions that may arise as a result of immigration.
One ought, of course, to discuss these matters—or so we are told—in an unemotional, objective way but it is extremely difficult to do so. There are intense feelings on both sides. It is an issue from which one cannot exclude emotion altogether. There are the intense feelings of the racialists who organised the campaign for the hon. Member for Smethwick and who supported him—the intense feelings of hatred for someone whom they think congenitally inferior to themselves. Those feelings arise, I think, very largely from psychological insecurity.
But there are also, if I may say so to the right hon. Member for Hands-worth, intense feelings on the other side. Maybe we should not feel them. I do not altogether blame the hon. Member for Smethwick. He is young. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is not so young."] I understand that he is 33. He was only a baby of two years when Hitler came to power and still only a school boy at the end of the Second World War.
As a teacher no doubt he should have some knowledge of modern history but it is impossible, however vivid one's imagination, to know fully what is meant by racialism unless one has really lived through or seen for oneself something of its beastliness.
There are a few hon. Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) and I among them—who had the terrible experience of going in April, 1954, in a Parliamentary delegation, to the newly-uncovered Buchenwald concentration camp. There were also, of course, members of the Conservative Party in the delegation, most of whom, alas, are no longer alive. This was a searing and unforgettably horrible experience and it drove into one's mind and one's heart what racialism to the Nth degree, as under Hitler, can mean, with the murder of 6 million Jews and all the other crimes.
Those of us who were here in the war can also remember that racialism—this alien Nazi horror—even crept into this honourable House. There was one Member, Captain Ramsay, who was detained under Regulation 18b because he was a potential traitor and collaborator with the enemy in time of war, a man


who had abused the machinery of the House in order to bring aid and comfort to the enemy. This was a terrible thing to the rest of us in the House, on whichever side we sat; at the time there was a coalition Government under Sir Winston Churchill.
I say this—and I am sorry if I have taken up too much time—to try to explain the bitterness that so many of us have when a Member is brought here largely—not entirely, of course—on racialist votes and a racialist campaign. This is an appalling danger and I really do feel, with the Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, that the Leader of the Opposition is not doing his duty unless he applies those admirable general sentiments of his to the particular case of Smethwick and explicitly, in terms, repudiates the hon. Member for Smethwick and the campaign that got him here.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I feel rather diffident in intervening at this late hour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] One never knows whether one should let one's friends go home or try to repay to oneself for the eight hours of sitting through the debate. I shall seek to detain the Committee only a few minutes, but I hope that my hon. Friend's will forgive me if I do not follow the important contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Mr. Driberg) and Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot). The debate is extremely important for those of us who represent constituencies where this problem is a live issue all the time and has been for many years.
I want, briefly, to address myself to two points which have arisen, and, first, to the national issues raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary when he outlined three conditions whereby it would be possible for this Act to continue for a further 12 months in the hope that in the meantime action could be taken which would help us to reach a solution that would, perhaps, be more favourable to those of us who have had to deal with some of the backwash which has since occurred.
My right hon. and learned Friend outlined three propositions. First, that we should have the Racial Discrimination Bill. As Mr. Fenner Brockway, the Member for Eton and Slough in the last

Parliament, put this forward on no fewer than nine occasions, this is the right moment, even at five minutes to one in the morning, to pay tribute to the hard work which he did in that respect. When that Measure goes on to the Statute Book it will be our tribute to him for the hard and continuous work he did to this end throughout many years.
The second point mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend was that to which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour addressed himself, the question of how the Commonwealth was to be consulted. I hope that it will not be merely consultation but a combined operation. The essential job to be carried out should not be just by us as the recipient country of those immigrants from the Commonwealth countries who are able today to help us with our economy by sending us workers, but should be tackled by the whole Commonwealth as a mutual problem. The huge shift of population which has been taking place since 1945 is not only a problem which affects the home country; it affects all countries. The solution should be sought in that manner.
I hope, therefore, that this matter will not be, as many have suggested, just an item on the agenda of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference or merely consultation with the Commonwealth countries but will be a fully-fledged common operation. I hope that a special conference will be convened from which some positive results may accrue.
The last point raised by my right hon. Friend—for national action—was concerned with the working of the Overseas Development Department, and were it not 1 o'clock in the morning I would have liked to go further into that. I would say to the Committee that the other matter which is most important against the background of these social problems which this situation creates is the general plan outlined in the Gracious Speech. It is that there will be planning in the regions to alleviate the pressure on housing.
As far as my constituency is concerned, it does not matter how many people are moved out into new towns because we are a magnet of employment. As soon as one person moves out another comes in to take the job vacated. There is the Park


Royal Estate and the factories on the North Circular Road which represent a great concentration of industry. While we have this industry there we shall have a housing problem. We have had it ever since the Welsh came in 1926 and the Irish in 1939. In recent years, one in nine of the immigrants from the Commonwealth, according to the last census, came to my constituency. In the same census there was a slight majority of Irish over Commonwealth immigrants, but that was in 1961.
To come to my last point, there has been talk throughout the debate on the question of integration. It is like the negro spiritual—many who talk about Heaven are never going there—there is a lot of talk about integration by people who do nothing about it.
1.0 a.m.
I can recall that in Willesden, following Notting Hill, the Smethwick of 1958, when there were scandals and riots, we faced an important social problem because we were the neighbouring area. The only way in which to meet it was by having the kind of committee which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) mentioned as having in his area. What we did set the pattern for many areas. One has the local authority, the mayor and other important citizens of the community, taking the initiative and having funds supplied by the borough to provide a welfare officer, in our case a Jamaican. We made a constant day-to-day effort to relieve the tensions, taking action when there was a flash point to prevent the flash from breaking out into an explosion. Hon. Members have spoken about conciliation where immigrants and locals, with differing traditions, come into conflict. In my constituency it is not a matter of friction between neighbours, but of the families upstairs and downstairs, for nearly every house in my constituency is multi-occupied. The only way in which this kind of thing can be successfully handled is by having someone experienced in social case work and we are grateful to the London Council for Social Service and the National Council for Social Service for the help and training they have given our committee members of various races to do case work where friction has broken out.
I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to issue a directive so that it is clear to an immigrant going to an employment exchange that any colour bar is placed by the employer and not the employment exchange. When a colour bar is operated, it should be clearly seen where it is operated and not made to appear to operate through a Government Department.
I have spoken for my five minutes. If I had managed to catch your eye four and a half hours ago, Mr. Hynd, I would have hoped for another 15. I want to say finally that when hon. Members talk about integration, I hope that they will appreciate that it is not just talk but work and finding the time and effort and a good deal of research. In my area a survey of advertisements for lodgings showed that 10 per cent of 2, 647 examined said "No coloureds" or "European only". As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary deployed the facts and figures when outlining the national problem, so we have to have the facts when dealing with these matters at local level. If we are to tackle this problem successfully in our communities, we have had precisely the same factual background, not only for people undertaking social research work, but so that the immigrants can take their full part in that kind of activity.
I am confident that if we can have this kind of approach in the community, when we get to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill next year it will not be necessary to renew this Act which, whatever hon. Members may say about it, has the overtone of a colour bar in that some people have to get through three gates because their skin is of one colour while others can come in without going through all the voucher procedures and work permits because their skin is another colour.
Unless we can make it clear to our friends in the Commonwealth that action is being taken internationally and nationally to relieve pressures, and if we have to come back to this Act in this form next year, there will be far more resistance from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee than there has been tonight. I hope that the result of the debate will be constructive and that we will see a new approach and a different solution to a real problem as a result of this eight hours' stretch.

Mr. Wise: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): As objection has been taken, the Amendment cannot now be withdrawn.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS (AMENDMENT) [MONEY]

Resolution reported, 
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make new provision in place of or amend certain provisions of the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Act 1959, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of any sums required to be made available out of moneys so provided for the purpose of satisfying claims (including claims in respect of interest or costs or, in Scotland, expenses) in respect of hurt or damage to which the first-mentioned Act relates;
(ii) of any increase attributable to the provisions of the first-mentioned Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other Act;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Minister of Power or the Secretary of State—

(i) in pursuance of an international agreement by way of a contribution by the government of a country outside the United Kingdom towards the satisfaction of any such claim as aforesaid; or
(ii) under any provisions of the first-mentioned Act.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AIRPORTS AUTHORITY [MONEY]

Resolution reported, 
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of a public authority with functions including the operation of aerodromes, it is expedient to authorise—

A. The payment out of the Consolidated Fund of

(1) any sums required by the Minister of Aviation for the purpose of making loans to the authority, but so that the aggregate amount outstanding in respect of principal of those loans and of any money borrowed temporarily by the authority does not, together with the commencing capital debt

assumed by the authority under the said Act, exceed seventy million pounds;
(2) any sums required to fulfil any guarantee by the Treasury of the repayment of, or payment of interest on, any money temporarily borrowed by the authority.

B. The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of any expenditure incurred by the Minister of Health or Secretary of State for preventing danger to public health from aircraft arriving at any aerodrome managed by the authority or for preventing the spread of infection by means of any aircraft leaving any such aerodrome;
(b) of any expenditure incurred by the Minister of Transport or Secretary of State in the exercise of powers under section 28 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 as applied by the said Act of the present Session.

C. The borrowing in any manner authorised under the National Loans Act 1939 of any money needed for providing or replacing any sum required by the Minister of Aviation for the purpose of making loans to the authority.
D. The payment of any sums into the Exchequer.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Mr. Bellenger, Mr. Herbert W. Bowden, Mr. Roderic Bowen, Sir Robert Cary, Colonel Sir Oliver CrosthwaiteEyre, and Mr. Arthur Tiley appointed Managing Trustees of the House of Commons Members' Fund in pursuance of section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939.—[Mr. Sydney Irving.]

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, LINWOOD

Motion made, and Question proposed,  That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Grey.]

1.5 a.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Despite the lateness of the hour, I am glad to have this opportunity to raise the question of new industrial development in the Linwood area. Since other hon. Members may wish to have an opportunity to speak I will be brief and to the point in my remarks.
I warned in the House two weeks ago of the dangers involved in the Linwood area, depending as the industry there does on the success of one model of car, and since I issued that warning events have moved very quickly indeed. We are now


in the middle of a real industrial crisis and both management and shop stewards have been discussing the position almost daily. A further, perhaps decisive, meeting will be taking place this afternoon. I am sure that no hon. Member will wish to say anything tonight which might make the situation more difficult.
Having said that, I would like it clearly on the record that the workers and shop stewards at both Rootes and Pressed Steel have behaved responsibly, patiently and, above all, with considerable restraint in the last month or so, in a period which has been full of strain and anxiety for them and their families.
I wish to emphasise that this is not a small local matter. It is one of vital importance not only to the future of the area as a potential growth point, but to the whole future industrial development within Scotland. This can be clearly seen from Scottish newspaper front pages and the way the Press has handled the subject. It is the first time to my knowledge that for three days running such a story has made the full front pages of the popular Scottish daily newspapers.
The situation at present is that the management of Rootes is offering a return to a five-day week in place of the four-day week the men have been working for the past few months, if the men will accept the redundancy of between 300 and 400 men. The alternative, it is said, might be a three-day week for some sections of the factory, but that that would be economically impossible. The men are saying, in the words of one popular newspaper, "Don't sack our mates" and have made some suggestions about an adjustment within the factory. In the meantime, the associated factory of Pressed Steel, producing the car bodies for Rootes, is operating four-day working for about 1, 800 of its men. I do not, for obvious reasons, want to go into the whole background and reasons for this situation, except to say that the project on which the whole complex was geared has reached nothing near the original target on which the existing labour force was based.
Hon. Members should remember that this is a very different position from the Midlands, where the car industry has often had to assimilate a four day, five clay changing situation. In the area

about which I am speaking, on the other hand, we have a background of unemployment. The Midlands can absorb that sort of changing employment situation. This area cannot.
I have the local Ministry of Labour figures with me and, while I do not wish to weary the House at this late hour, the Minister will be interested to know that, for example, at the Paisley employment exchange there are 730 registered unemployed men, 212 at Johnstone, 418 at Barrhead and 1, 411 at Greenock and the neighbouring employment exchange at Port Glasgow is similar. The running down of our traditional industries in Scotland—figures of which I will not detail now—has made the situation even more serious.
We must keep in mind the point that between 1959 and 1963, at a period when employment for male workers in the southern and eastern regions of England rose by 120, 000, in Scotland it fell by 6, 000. We must keep in mind, too, the vacancy position. For example, for every 100 unemployed boys in the Midlands, there are 1, 359 jobs, but for every 100 unemployed boys in Scotland there are only 60 jobs. That is the background.
Here are men trained in the car business whom we are likely to need if the necessary expansion takes place. My fear—I expressed it yesterday during discussion with Mr. Geoffrey Rootes—is that these workers will become a permanent loss in the sense that they will move south to look for work. Therefore, when we try to bring in our plans to redevelop the Scottish area, we will not have this skilled labour force available.
The other part of the background is that because of our hopes with the coming of Rootes, the virtually new town of Linwood of between, eventually. 10, 000 and 15, 000 people was planned around the enterprise, with overspill coming in mainly from Glasgow. People who had come from single-room housing got decent three- or four-apartment houses for the first time, with all the commitments that this entails. These, however, are the very group of people who face the position which I have outlined. The situation is, therefore, a serious one.
My appeal tonight, therefore, is twofold. I should like to take this opportunity


to appeal, first to Rootes, even at this late hour, when we arc, perhaps, 12 hours away from the meeting, to do everything that is humanly possible to hold on to their existing labour force, even on a four-day week basis, and even while recognising their genuine economic difficulties in this situation. Because if these men go, it may mean contraction and not merely temporary redundancy.
Secondly, I ask the Department as a matter of urgency that a meeting should be called between the Board of Trade, the Minister responsible for regional planning and the Secretary of State for Scotland, perhaps under his chairmanship, urgently to review the position of Linwood and to institute Government action.
In urging the need for planning priority, I shall not necessarily argue the case for Linwood as being the obvious growth point with planning priority. Like Everest, however. it is there, and, therefore, we cannot afford to ignore the situation. In the Pressed Steel factory there is a large basis for what is called diversification within the industry, and in Rootes we have a very large productive unit of the kind of which there are far too few in Scotland. Along with this, we should be considering the situation in the context of the planning of the Clyde Valley as a whole.
I welcomed last week's statement by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade concerning advance factories, but the Board of Trade will realise that to us in Scotland this is not yet sufficient. We realise the difficulties facing the new Administration, and the problems that we face are not of our creating. We must, however, keep in mind that in the last few years, in tackling the problem of growth and development in Scotland, we have failed to understand—I hope that the new Government do understand—that it is not sufficient merely to move production units to Scotland. Along with them we must move research and development centres to ensure a process of self-generating growth, otherwise there cannot he proper growth. The rapid utilisation of technology is necessary to ensure the self-generating process without which development will not take place.
In such a situation, Governments have a much greater rôle to play than often they realise. Much of the expenditure in this field is direct Government contractual

expenditure. I should, therefore, like to see the establishment of Government projects based upon and utilising the technological resources of the area—for example, of Strathclyde University and of Glasgow University, along the lines of the M.I.T. developments in the Boston Valley of America. I should like to see such projects fulfilling direct Government contracts, drawing, if need be, upon the scientific research of these places.
I have spoken to many of the staff and I can say they all are keen on this type of industrial development; no one has rejected the idea. Now that we have, therefore, the opportunity of diversification, but it should come within the industrial structure, not outwith the structure, of the area, and associated with the existing industrial complex there. Diversification, if it is not to come to a dead end, must be based on existing potential, and should be based on the Rootes Pressed Steel complex itself. We must remember that failure often can occur with developing industry. Ferranti has been keen on developing its factory in Scotland using Scottish components. But about £4 million a year is spent by them south of the Border on buying components and we should like such development north of it.
I know that the hon. Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) wants to get into the debate, so I shall conclude by making three quick points. I have been speaking quickly to get as much as possible in in the short time available to me. Under-developed areas are obvious places for Government contracts to be placed to meet the needs of such areas. We should use existing factories to institute the production of a really light tractor, much lighter than we use in this country, to work on the soils of, say, West Africa. There should be a mobile irrigation engine for pumping purposes in the same kind of area, with an engine of the order of say, 1 or 2 horse power, to provide both mobility and pumping, and, thirdly, a light brake van with a winch on top, to spark off contractual work in this area.
These would help to keep the factories going. The situation is serious, but I think that a solution lies to hand, and I urge quick action upon the Government, because I believe that if the Government


were to make a statement of their intentions it would help to prevnt the contraction which appears to be about to happen.

1.17 a.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson: As a Member who has the honour to represent the constituency where the two great factories are situated, I am glad to have this opportunity in rather unusual circumstances to take part in this debate. I shall confine myself, because of the shortness of time, to one or two points which I believe to be important.
We must remember that Rootes and Pressed Steel comprised together are perhaps the most important single stake in the expansionist policy which we all want Scotland to follow. As the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) has said, there is a great potential here for component industries. I want to emphasise what he has said with regard to the rate of production, which is a matter which has been perturbing many for reasons which I do not propose to enter into now and which, I hope, we shall not go into in any detail this evening. But this great enterprise must succeed, because it is in the interests of every single person in Scotland that it does so.
There are three points I want to make particularly. The first is that I believe that if we were to accept the proposition which has been put forward that there should be a three-day or even a four-day working week, the factory would thereby lose many of the skilled men whom it has been extremely difficult to get, and it is because we wish to keep these men who are skilled in this particular industry and location that there is a considerable body of opinion in favour of maintaining the five-day week. So there is this point to be made, as opposed to the point which the hon. Member put forward, about losing these skills to the South.
The second point in that connection I wish to make is that there has been already considerable progress in component parts, and that whereas there were only six firms which were contributing components to this industry before the exhibition Rootes held a year ago, now there are about 60 firms. An example I would suggest quickly is that Triplex bring up to Scotland a factory for yet another component in the very near

future. This is precisely the development which we most want to see in this part of Scotland. It is also right to put on record that the Hillman Imp car is already, in terms of value, a 76 per cent. Scottish product.
There are two points which ought to be recorded under the heading of diversification. First, it is unrealistic to discuss the employment position as the hon. Gentleman did, because these are highly skilled jobs and we are now dealing with building up in Scotland the technologists whom we need. It is not as easy as the hon. Gentleman suggested to diversify in this field, and diversification, to be effective in terms of employment, must be in this field.
Secondly, while I accept the figures which the hon. Gentleman has no doubt checked of the unemployed available, it is no use giving these figures unless they are matched against the skills and capability of persons concerned, and this imposes limitations on how best to use this labour.
Most important of all is that this is highly specialised plant designed to a production rate which we must see is achieved. It is not really very practical to suggest that it can be altered substantially within itself, and the intention has been to produce to the maximum along the lines which this highly specialised plant is designed to cover.
I hope that everybody will join in doing their utmost to see that this enterprise prospers. I think that we should leave to the good offices of those whose primary concern this is such negotiation as is going on at the present time.

1.22 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) and the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) have rightly drawn attention to a serious employment situation in the Linwood area, with which they are both concerned. They pointed to the risks of an area being too dependent for jobs on one industry. I think that this is really at the root of the problem which we have immediately to consider.
It is not a new problem. Successive Governments have had to face it over many years, but in a very different context, because the one industry here is not


a declining industry, as was the case with the distressed areas before the war, which were too dependent on certain industries. This is, or should be, an expanding area with new industries going in.
We are fully aware of the risks and dangers of the sort of concentration which the situation at Linwood has exposed, this dependence on a single industry or group of industries working together. I assure both hon. Members that the Board of Trade, the Scottish Office, and everybody concerned with industrial development are concerned to get diversity of industries in their development projects.
The Linwood area presents us with special problems, not only because of this high degree of dependence on one firm and the enterprises which serve that firm. This is very much a new industrial area which has attracted workers from Glasgow, Paisley, and elsewhere. There are new housing estates, and the whole success both of the social projects and of the industrial developments depends on a continuing expansion of employment. We cannot have these social and industrial developments unless we can plan for the continuous expansion of employment. Even short-time working will upset the steady expansion that we all wish to see in development districts.
The hon. Lady pointed out that in going to the Linwood area Rootes have done more than create employment in their own factories. I am glad that she gave the figures that I intended to give anyhow. She referred to the fact that 76 per cent. of the value of Rootes products at Linwood is now Scottish in content, and that a lot has been done to assist and stimulate local industry. More components are now being bought and produced in Scotland. But, good as this expansion of component manufacturing may be, it is only a beginning, because for a truly balanced economy these Scottish component factories ought to be producing for the United Kingdom area, not just for a part of Scotland, and not just for the two or three Scottish car and commercial vehicle plants.
These are matters which we shall obviously have to bear in mind, but I stress that the jobs which have been created—or most of them—are new jobs. The Rootes factory has provided diversity

by introducing new industry. But this in itself is part of the problem. Workers have come in from elsewhere and have to be trained for the new jobs, and if they cannot be fully employed in car production we are under an obligation to see that their skills are not wasted and that they make a full contribution to the general industrial expansion which we all want to see.
Both hon. Members who have spoken have mentioned this, and we must try to keep these people in Scotland, to help to stop the drift to the English Midlands and to the congested South-East region. A difficulty which we face in car production is that output and employment depend very much on the success of one, or just a few, models. If a model does not have the expected demand, then there has to be some retooling and new designing and perhaps new arrangements for the production schedule. These changes do mean technical changes in the industry itself and this takes some time. It also upsets production and, of course, engineering workers fully understand this. I must here say that they are usually co-operative in helping management through the necessary technical changes of this kind.
This is what has happened at Rootes now. There are good grounds for believing that output and employment will pick up, but we cannot sit back and just wait for this anticipated improvement. Linwood is a new industrial area in several senses and has become a most important reception area for Glasgow overspill, apart from the new towns designed for that purpose. The county council has approved schemes for community development. We must deal with Linwood as part of the wider regional area of Glasgow and Clydeside and remember that there are projects coming along. For example, the new Glasgow Airport is not far away, and this, we hope, will improve communications. There is the new Erskine Bridge, over the Clyde, and all this will add to Linwood's importance as an industrial centre.
I mention these projects so that we can be seen to be fully alive to Linwood's future; and when I say "we" I mean all the Government departments that may be concerned. I can tell hon. Members that they are all working together in regional planning, the regional


planning to which my hon. Friend has referred tonight, and accepting it as a job which has to be done. We shall take full note of the views expressed on the technical aspects of what we have come to know as growth planning; I think that my hon. Friend and I understand each other on those terms.
We are doing all that we can to introduce new industry to this area, in common with other areas of Scotland where industrial expansion is needed, and we shall not relax our efforts. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will shortly be announcing some new measures which we hope will help us to attract new industries to Scotland. But these measures and projects, even if they develop in Scotland, will not ease the present redundancy problem and the short-time working at Rootes. This is the difficulty that we are up against at present. The House will not wish me to comment on the negotiations to which my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady referred, which are now going on between the unions and the management for some appropriate working arrangements to deal with the present situation. We will see how they go. We

hope that satisfactory arrangements will emerge.
I assure both my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady there will be no relaxing of our efforts to introduce new industry into the area, in common with other areas in Scotland where similar problems obtain. So far as Linwood is concerned, we will bear in mind that a number of workers and their families have gone to live there as a result of the Rootes development and that we have a special responsibility in that regard.
There is not much more that I can add in detail. We have the situation before us. It has been thoroughly examined. We will do everything we can to meet the wishes of both my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady and make sure that Linwood plays its part, as it should play its part as a developing area in Scotland, in finding employment and also in making a real contribution to development not only in Scottish industry but in industry in Great Britain generally, and in the expansion we require.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Two o'clock.